Sitting of 6 March 1846

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Stafford, v. the Hon. Swynfen Thomas Carnegie, Commissioner of the Treasury.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Railway, &c. Deposits; Out Pensioners' Payment (Greenwich and Chelsea); Out Pensioners' Services (Chelsea and Greenwich Bill).
2°. Metropolitan Buildings (No. 2); Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bright, Mr. Moffatt, and Mr. Williams, from several places, for a Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. Evans, from several places in the County of Derby, against the proposed Government Measure respecting Customs and Corn Importation.—By Lord James Stuart, from Carpet Weavers and others in the employ of James Templeton, Esq., Ayr, and by Colonel Thomas Wood, from Inhabitants and Ratepayers of Chelsea, for Commercial Reform.—By Sir Robert Peel, from Shipowners of the Port of Sunderland, for Reduction of Duty on Timber.—By Mr. Hume, from Guildry Incorporation of the Royal Burgh of Montrose, in favour of Burghs (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Hornby, from several places in the County of Lancaster, for Limiting the Hours of Labour of Children and Young Persons employed in Factories to Ten.—By Mr. Duncan, from Baxter Brothers and Company, Flax Spinners in Dundee, for refuting Statements respecting Ill-treatment of Girls in Factories.—By Mr. Williams, from Samuel Gordon, Esq., of Aungier Street, Dublin, for Inquiry into Injuries perpetrated upon him by Persons connected with the Court of Chancery in Ireland.—By Sir William Somerville, from Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of the Corporation of Drogheda, for Encouragement of Mechanics' Institutes in Ireland.—By Mr. Bright, Mr. Busfeild, and Mr. Duncombe, from a great number of places, against Enrolment of Militia.—By Mr. Wilson Patten, from Members of the Board of Guardians of Garstang Union, for Alteration

717
of the Poor Law.—By Mr. Young, from High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Cavan, in favour of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Greene, from Grand Jury of the County of Leitrim, for Alteration of Law respecting Railways (Ireland).

COMMERCIAL POLICY—CUSTOMS—CORN LAWS.
House in Committee on the Customs and Corn Importation Acts. On the Question—
"That in lieu of the Duties now payable on the importation of Corn, Grain, Meal, or Flour, there shall be paid until the 1st day of February, 1849, the following Duties," &c.—
MR. W. O. STANLEYrose for the purpose of moving the following Amendment—
"There be paid a fixed Duty of five shillings per quarter upon Wheat."
Although he represented an agricultural constituency, he had not hitherto troubled the House, because he was desirous of paying undivided attention to the arguments on both sides, with a view to ascertain whether he ought or ought not to alter the opinions he had always held on this subject. The noble Member for the city of London had said on a late occasion that "he thought the interests of the country were deeply involved in the immediate, complete, and tranquil settlement of the question." He cordially agreed with the noble Lord, but he was prepared to prove that not one of his three propositions would be effected by the proposed measure. Nobody would say that they would produce an immediate settlement of the question; the vote of the other night decided that it should not be immediate. Nor would it be a complete settlement of the question; and as to a tranquil settlement of it, the hon. Members for Durham and Wolverhampton had avowed that they would continue to agitate as long as any part of the present duty upon corn remained. Looking to the future, nobody could believe that this would be a tranquil settlement of the question. With a view to bring about a complete and tranquil settlement, he had put his Amendment on the Notice-book; and if his arrangement were accepted, he was strongly of opinion that the country would readily submit to it. It would feel that a moderate fixed duty ought to be maintained—that it would be a useful source of revenue, and a slight protection to the farmer, by which the consumer could not be materially injured. The noble Lord had himself admitted that a 5s. duty upon wheat would not raise the price more than 1s. per quarter. If the right hon. Baronet at the head
718
of the Government wished to carry out his own proposition, he would support this Amendment; and while he advocated a 10 per cent duty on cotton, linen, butter, cheese, &c., it was not unreasonable to expect that he would afford the same degree of protection to corn: 5s. on wheat, 2s. 6d. on barley, and 2s. (or rather 1s. 6d., which he wished to substitute in the terms of his Amendment) upon oats, would not be more than equal to 10 per cent. With regard to the question of revenue, the right hon. Baronet ought not lightly to throw away a source of 500,000 l. annually. The right hon. Baronet was himself in favour of a 4s. duty for a limited period; and why should he object to a duty of 5s. permanently? He now appealed to the formidable party opposite—to the 265 Members who were fighting a battle under adverse circumstances, one of which was that they had been deserted by their own supporters. Would they refuse to accept his proposal? Would they not pause before they threw the country into the tumult of a general election, when they would have to array their forces in the counties to meet the League in the towns? If as a body they would unite with him, they would have a much better chance of an equitable settlement than if they were to resort to extreme measures: they would then not only be supported by their own partisans, but they would disarm the powers of the League. He did not believe that the measure would be carried elsewhere, and the result would be continued agitation. He submitted his proposition, convinced that it would not only be a just and fair settlement of the Corn Law question, but that it would be injurious to no interest in the Empire.
COLONEL WOODsaid, that he had not as yet taken any part in these long-protracted debates, and he would now trespass for a short time on the House. He was sure that all the great interests of the country, and particularly the agricultural interest, were suffering severely from the great delay that was taking place in adopting the measure of the right hon. Baronet. The whole corn trade was completely paralysed. There was not a farmer who was not waiting to see how this proposal of the right hon Baronet would be disposed of. Who were the parties connected with the agricultural interests who would most suffer from this delay? It was the small tenant-farmers about whom the hon. Gentleman professed to be so much interested. The large tenant-farmers might perhaps be able

719
to suspend their sales, but the small tenant-farmers must prepare for their Lady-day rents. Their barley and their oats were already disposed of: the little wheat they had remained to be sold. They were losing 3s. or 4s. on every quarter of wheat now brought to market, because the trade was suspended; and it was his firm belief that if this question were disposed of we should see the price of wheat rise instead of fall. That was the first injury which was sustained by the small tenant-farmer. Now for the last. By the delay of this measure the price of corn had fallen—the duty on the importation of foreign grain was rising. There was not a ship-load of corn that arrived in any part of the United Kingdom that was not immediately warehoused, and the consequence would be that when this measure was disposed of there would be a large accumulation of corn in the warehouses, which would be poured out for consumption, and utterly swamp the market. So much for the agricultural interest. But there was another class of society concerned in a measure to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had alluded, viz., a measure to alter the law of removal, to which the poor were now subject. Every week's delay in passing that measure was consigning some poor family to the Union workhouse for the rest of their lives. If Gentlemen were so anxious for the benefit of their poorer fellow countrymen, let them not delay this measure; but let this amelioration of the law of settlement travel with the other measure, and whilst they were taking care of themselves, as some supposed, let them take cave of their poorer neighbours into the bargain, and rescue the poorer class of society from the general law of removal under which they were now suffering, and by which some poor families were cast into a parish in which they had not been for forty or fifty years of their lives. He was decidedly opposed to the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down. In his own opinion the time had arrived when the Corn Laws ought to be immediately and entirely repealed. He had voted for the last thirty years for every Act of Parliament that had regulated the importation of corn, and he had no hesitation in saying that every one of those Acts of Parliament were perfect failures. He remembered when the Secretary at War stated that the Act of 1815 was the most unwise Act the landed interest ever could support. He voted for the Act, and there was a great cheer of
720
astonishment that anybody could assert that the Act of 1815 was a failure. He had no hesitation in saying that there never was an Act of Parliament placed on the Statute Book which so speedily proved the futility of all enactments to divert the calamities over which there could be no human control, and which the Legislature might materially aggravate, but could not alleviate. In 1816 was the most calamitous harvest ever remembered. On the 15th August, 1815, the opening price was just below 80 s., and the ports of the country remained closed during all August, September, and October; and when a little dry corn would have been of the utmost importance to mix with our damaged corn, not a grain could be taken out of bond; and it was not till the 15th of November that any sound corn was entered. The ports were opened in 1816, and they remained open till August, 1818, when there happened a wet week, which raised the price; a large quantity of foreign corn flowed into this country, and for three years the country felt the effect of the importation. From 1815 to the present moment he would undertake to prove that every one of these Acts of Parliament had been failures. There was one reason why he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member—it was because he was sincerely anxious that this measure should pass the two Houses of Parliament. He thought the right hon. Baronet knew better than other Gentlemen what was likely to pass the two Houses of Parliament. He should vote for this measure, because he thought the right hon. Baronet knew what was likely to succeed; and the other branch of the Legislature ought to have a fair field open to them to do some good. He hoped they would amend the Bill, and send it back with a clause in it for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn Laws. He was satisfied that if the House of Lords adopted that course—and he firmly believed that as a body they would consult their own interests: there was no part of the landed proprietors whose estates were better prepared to meet any change, if any change should follow, which he believed would not be the case—if they should send the Bill back again, amended, as he hoped, he was sure that the cry from one end of the country to the other would be, "Thank God, we have got a House of Lords!" He sincerely hoped the House of Lords would adopt that course, and with that view he should support the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENsaid, that his gallant Friend had at the commencement of his speech charged him and his Friends with causing great and reprehensible delay by these debates; but in the latter part he challenged them to enter into a discussion with him upon all the Corn Laws which had been passed since 1815. There was, he thought, as much discrepancy between these statements as when his gallant Friend had at one part of his speech said that the measure of the right hon. Baronet would raise the price of wheat, and in another that it would make no difference at all. The right hon. Baronet had said that the effect of the measure would be to raise the price of wheat 1s. or 2s. per quarter; but his gallant Friend said that it would raise it 3s. or 4s. His gallant Friend had said also, that the alteration of the present cruel law of settlement was delayed by the present debates, and that they were responsible for the evils inflicted by that law upon the poorer classes of the country. Now, as far as the famine in Ireland was concerned, the case would be worse, if the price of provisions was raised; and as the law of settlement had no direct connection with the present measure, he begged to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the suggestion of his gallant Friend, that the measure relating to the law of settlement should be permitted to precede the present question—which should be postponed in order to keep down the price of wheat. He could not see how his gallant Friend could get out of this difficulty. Granting the premises of his gallant Friend, they could come to no conclusion but this—that as there were many Gentlemen in that House who received this not as a question of mere imports, but as a great financial and commercial change; and as these Gentlemen would persevere in an obstinate discussion of the question—if the right hon. Baronet had reason to believe that the price of provisions would be raised, and if he agreed with his gallant Friend, who was so zealous a supporter of his—as to the necessity of a change in the law of settlement, the least return he could make for that support, was to grant his request, and to let the law of settlement precede the decision of the Corn Law. But as the question of delay had been urged against them, he egged to call the attention of the House to the state of the case with regard to the delay which had taken place in these debates. With regard to the
722
length of time which had been consumed, he did not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought them to blame. Let the House look to the condition of the Notice-book. It would have been in the power of so large a minority so to have clogged the Notice-book that the progress of the debate would have been seriously retarded. Now, with the exception of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, there had not been a single notice placed on the Notice-book by hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the Government on this subject. [An HON. MEMBER: There's the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract.] He did not allude to Motions made as Amendments to this question, but to Motions which would retard the debate. There was not one notice from that side of the House except the notice of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire. But let them look upon the other side of the House. There was the hon. Member for Athlone, who had brought forward certain charges against his noble Friend the Member for Buckingham, and his noble Friend the Member for Chichester. [Mr. COLLETT: My charges were not against the hon. Members, but against the Peers.] But the charges were of a nature that directly concerned his noble Friends, and were intended to draw from them explanations and statements in reply. He did not impute any blame to the hon. Member for Athlone for the production of the Motion. The hon. Member had brought it forward in the discharge of his duty. But what he said was this—that if they on that side of the House had been desirous of delaying the debate, they might have entered into a discussion upon the motives of the hon. Member for Athlone, and produced a protracted debate upon the hon. Member's Motion. But not one of his noble Friends had risen, and the Motion had been very speedily disposed of. Let the House then look at the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire. His hon. Friend had brought in his Motion for a Committee to inquire into the fraudulent objections to the right of voting in his county. The right hon. Baronet did not oppose the appointment of that Committee, and his hon. Friend would have raised no further discussion upon it. But the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had given notice, not simply of his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill upon the subject, but of his intention to ask that leave as an Amendment to the Motion of his hon. Friend. This would necessarily

723
lead to a debate. Now, he did not blame the hon. and learned Gentleman for the pursuit of such a course; but he wanted to free himself and his friends from the charge of having caused a factious delay to the continuance of the debate upon this question. He would also beg to tell his gallant Friend that in his opinion a full discussion was better—seeing the strange confusion of parties which prevailed upon this question, and seeing how the subject had been protractedly, and, it might be, doggedly discussed—than if it had been hastily disposed of. As a principle opposed to the practice of the country for centuries was now, for the first time, to be introduced, a brief or hasty disposal of it would, in his opinion, have been most improper. But, however bad the famine might be in Ireland, he must remind the House that they were not responsible for the not issuing of the Order in Council, against which the only reason he had heard was that the noble Lord opposite had advised it. Nor were they responsible for the non-introduction of a temporary measure for the relief of Ireland, nor for the refusal of the Government to give precedence to the unopposed proposal with regard to Indian corn. Nor were they responsible that Parliament had not been assembled before the 22nd of January. The country would not sympathize with the Government nor with hon. Gentleman opposite in charging them with undue delay; and he gave notice to the House that whenever the same charge was repeated, he would cause still further delay by rising and contradicting it. As to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he did not intend to vote upon it, as he did not intend to take any part upon any of the Amendments which might be introduced to the measure of the right hon. Baronet.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had proposed this Amendment had said that it would lead to a tranquil settlement of the question. He, however, could not flatter the hon. Member with the hope that a 5s. fixed duty would load to anything like a tranquil settlement of the question. No settlement of this question could now be satisfactory, unless it were proposed in a speech by Her Majesty from the Throne to a now Parliament. Whatever settlement might be made by the present Parliament would only be regarded as a settlement brought about by treachery and fraud. As to his gallant Friend, he could not understand how—not
724
to be inconsistent with himself—he had not voted with the hon. Member for Wolverhapton the other evening. [Colonel WOOD: I did not vote at all.] His gallant Friend had, however, said that there was no party in the country upon which the House had turned its back; but there was certainly one upon which his gallant Friend had turned his back, and that party was his own constituents. He could not understand why the right hon. Baronet did not postpone the consideration of the measure until he had brought forward the question as to the settlement of the poor. The complaint as to the state of the settlement law reflected not upon his friends, but upon the Government. It was the Government who were chargeable with all the evils of the present settlement question. He had never supported any measure for the prohibition of the importation of corn. He had constantly supported every measure admitting the importation of corn on occasions of temporary exigency; but he had specially supported and consistently adhered to the principle of the sliding-scale. Those hon. Members who spoke of the state of the Corn Law and the effect of the sliding-scale, should recollect that in 1816, when wheat was at 112 s. in England, it rose to 116 s. at Vienna, and 127 s. at Stuttgard and Munich; and in 1817 when wheat was 112 s. in England, it was 127 s. at Stuttgard and Munich, and 141 s. in France. When, therefore, hon. Members who supported the Government spoke of the evil effects of the system of the Corn Laws and the sliding-scale, it should be borne in mind that the Corn Laws had always prevented the price of corn from arriving in this country at the famine level which they had attained on the Continent.
COLONEL WOODsaid, he had been charged with deceiving or deserting his constituents. Now he believed that his views were in accordance with the opinions of the majority of his constituents. He thought he knew as much of his constituents as any one; and he declared his belief that from the Lord Lieutenant downwards to the tenant-farmer the majority of them concurred with him on this question.
LORD J. RUSSELLmerely wished to explain that he had not suggested the opening of the ports by an Order in Council, but by a short Bill, to which he believed no one would have raised any objection. As to the introduction of maize, he had recommended not that it should be a separate measure, but that instead of

725
forming a part of the general Tariff, it should be introduced at the end of the measure upon the Corn Laws.
SIR J. TYRRELLcould not help saving that he had heard the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Brecon (Colonel Wood) with extreme astonishment—inasmuch as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had hitherto been regarded as the very Nestor of Protection. Especially was it a subject of surprise to him that, the hon. and gallant Member should be in a state of such excessive ignorance as to the opinions and feelings of his constituents upon this question, because, a requisition was already in a state of very considerable progress calling on the hon. and gallant Member to resign his seat—a requisition which he hoped the hon. and gallant Member, on account of the utter discordance between his opinions on the subject and those of his constituents, would be impelled, by his own high sense of honour, to accede to by resigning his seat as requested, particularly as the requisition was signed by large numbers not, only of the gentlemen of property, but, of the class referred to as so much the object of solicitude by the friends of this measure, i. e. the tenant-farmers. There was an association also of which he had heard, entitled "The Amalgamated Farmers' Company." He did not know how many shares the hon. and gallant Member was prepared to take in that concern. While he was on the subject of ignorance, he might be permitted to suggest a course which he believed would, while not interfering with public business, give great public satisfaction, He meant that while the agricultural interest accused the Government of treachery, and demanded that the sense of the country should be taken, the Ministers would leave the independent Members to carry on the business of the Session (the only pressing portion of which appeared to be the railway business), and meanwhile conduct an appeal to the country on the present measure: with such an appeal the agriculturists would be satisfied; without it it was not possible that they should be satisfied, especially while they saw in such places as those for which the Law Officers of the Crown sat, opinions entertained on this important subject quite at variance with those which were advocated by those learned Gentlemen. This he could assure the Government, that the agricultural party were prepared to fight the measure by every means which the forms of the House
726
afforded. It was their duty so to do—their duty to protection, as it would be to the Crown, were its interests directly, as he believed them to be indirectly, affected by the measure.
LORD WORSLEYrecommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, as a division would be a useless waste of time, with no prospect of success.
MR. CURTISsaid, seeing the hon. Member for Sunderland in his place, he wished to set him right as to a statement the hon. Member had made the other night.
MR. GREENE: It is not competent to the hon. Gentleman to refer to speeches delivered on a former occasion in this House.
MR. CURTIS: Well, then, Sir, I will just state, it has been said that the wages paid to agricultural labourers in Sussex are only 8s. a week. They are on the contrary 12 s., a week, and often 13 s. or 14 s. I know that many farmers give 13 s. or 14 s. a week, and that if a man be a tolerably good labourer he can easily get 12 s. I do not believe that wages so low as 8s. a week are to be met with except rarely—and certainly not in Sussex. The hon. Member went on to say he really wondered that tin- Amendment met with so little, support among those who till recently were so favourable to the fixed duty. His own opinion was in favour of a duty of 6s. first; then one of 4s.; then one of 2s.; and then none at all. The farmers thought that they had not been fairly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. They claimed to be justly entitled to relief from the hop duty, and the malt duty, and other burdens. There was a strong opinion gaining ground in favour of a repeal of the malt duty; and it would be powerfully urged on the Government that a proportion of the hop duty should be taken off equal to that portion of the corn duty which was removed by this measure.
MR. HUDSONsaid, that he had never alluded to the wages in Sussex, and was gratified to hear they were so good, though he was not at all surprised to hear it, believing that most, unfounded statements had been made as to agricultural labour; and he trusted that what had been stated would weigh with Her Majesty's Ministers.
Amendment negatived,
MR. MONCKTON MILNESrose for the

727
purpose of moving the following Amendment:—
"To more the omission of all words in the Resolution respecting the importation of Corn, referring to the cessation or alteration of duties to be paid in 1849."
He assured the House that nothing but a strong sense of public duty could have induced him to come so prominently before them; but having a powerful excuse in the present state of parties — presenting as it did a disruption of all its usual ties—and looking to the suspension of confidence in public men which prevailed throughout the country, and the necessity imposed on every Member of Parliament who had not pledged himself to his constituents to judge the question before the House by the light of his own knowledge and reflection, he ventured to recommend the adoption of the course suggested in his Amendment. He might be told that the character of mediator between two great parties — one flushed with victory, and the other unsubdued by defeat—was ungrateful and unnecessary; and indeed the issue of his hon. Friend's Amendment did not encourage him to believe that he would receive much support in that capacity from either side of the House. But he would, nevertheless, perform what he conceived to be his duty to his constituents and his country. The object of his Amendment was to continue for an indefinite period; but he should be sorry to say for a permanency—the reduced scale of duties which would come into operation on the Bill before the House becoming the law of the land. That scale was extremely moderate — ranging over very few figures, and affording a strong contrast to the measure of the right hon. Baronet in 1842. When that measure, which the House was now called on to abolish, was brought before them, he (Mr. Milnes) stated his opinion that the scale was too high, and its details too complex. He was then informed that a lower protection to the farmer could not then be given. He opposed the scale of 1842, because he thought the country could not go up and down the ladder, with two great gaps in it, without sometimes falling through it. He objected to that scale, because he thought, considering the increase of population, and the great advance of agriculture, a lower scale would have been sufficient to enable the farmers to do all that they were asked to do—namely, to compete successfully with foreign farmers in average seasons. It was unnecessary for him to say anything
728
at all upon the scale of 1842. After hearing the two right hon. Gentlemen (Sir R. Peel and Sir James Graham) speak of that scheme, one would imagine that some satanic agency had brought it about rather than those two right hon. Gentlemen themselves. It was difficult to imagine how, with their means of information and power of observation, they should in 1842 have considered it the best scale, and that they should now treat it with such bitter vituperation. Therefore he was perfectly consistent in acting up to the principle in commercial matters which he had ever hitherto observed in approving of a considerable reduction of the scale of 1842. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet whether he ought not gravely to consider whether, by some compromise, such as reducing the duty to a low amount, and then fixing it indefinitely, he would not be able to reconcile his opponents, who now formed a determined and talented protective party. All the arguments of the right hon. Baronet went to relaxation, not abolition, of the corn duties. It was most untenable to attempt to draw analogy between the cases of wool and of corn. It would be scarcely less absurd than to expect credit for 100,000 l. on account of the previous punctual repayment of a loan of 50 l. Total repeal involved results pregnant with difficulties and dangers to which a statesman surely could not or should not be insensible. It was a matter of no small importance, to throw away entirely and absolutely the means of raising a revenue from corn—especially with a view to probably increased taxation, while clouds were hovering in every quarter of the horizon. Was it a wise thing, under such circumstances, was it a cautious thing for a cautious man to do, to cast away the power of raising revenue from this source? The effect of such a duty, it was obvious, would be very inconsiderable in its effects on the consumer; while the effect of a removal of the duties would simply be, to throw a large bonus into the hands of the foreign exporter. A natural feeling was aroused in the minds of the agriculturists that they were entitled, in the event of such a measure passing, to call for the abolition of all protective duties; and the inevitable effect would be to awaken, among a large and influential class of the community, a dangerous and hostile spirit, which had been characterized as a "strong, though ignorant impatience of taxation." It appeared unreasonable to lay it down that in three years—whatever might be the misfortunes

729
which agriculture meanwhile might meet with; whatever the intermediate difficulties and the intervening embarrassments of the country—free trade should be absolutely established. He thought that they had heard enough on both sides of the House on this subject to convince the right hon. Baronet that if he thought that the next three years would be years of contentment and happiness among the agricultural classes, he was sadly mistaken. He did not believe that the agricultural interests would even think themselves conquered by the carrying of this Bill; and he did not think that the Anti-Corn-Law League would be less serious in prosecuting their own intentions and their own objects. But so the right hon. Baronet had declared of his previous Corn Law, which he now deemed a failure. And what prospect was there that his deductions or his expectations as to the next three years, would prove more, correct than they had turned out as to the preceding period? Let it be supposed that in 1849 the harvest should be as abundant, and the price of wheat as low, as in 1835, did the right hon. Baronet really mean to say, that if wheat were at the end of his three years' interval, at 37 s., the carrying into effect of this proposed law was to be persisted in? If so, the result would certainly be one of the most terrible panics ever experienced. And it was inexplicable to him how the right hon. Baronet could have so signally been betrayed into a departure from his usual cautious and prudent course, and have entered on one rash, uncertain, and dangerous. No person could deny, that if this measure passed, all parties would regard it as a most triumphant victory of one class over another, He might be permitted to say to hon. Friends of his of the protective party—and he hoped that they would understand him to make the observation in a kind spirit—that he did not think that they acted wisely in refusing all compromise on this subject. He did not think that they did right in laying down the principle, that, whatever be the increase of the population, whatever be the increase of the necessities of this country, they would not admit any reduction of the law of 1842. Any man regarding the large increase of population, must consider the Corn Law as a temporary means of keeping in good and active cultivation the soil of this country. When he considered that England was the only wheat-eating country on the surface of the globe, he was not able to resist the conclusion, that to have a full and abundant
730
supply of wheat at the command of England, was not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. If they looked to the history of the last twenty years, they would find that the supply of corn was not in any way whatever limited by the Corn Law passed at the time of the peace. Let the right hon. Baronet then proceed in the course he had hitherto pursued, and carry out his own precedent. Let him only act with the same prudence and caution as he had acted in other matters, and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would reap an abundant reward. He knew well that it was a matter of great difficulty for any statesman in these days, especially after the passing of the Reform Act, to accomplish an harmonious action between a powerful monarchy, a proud aristocracy, and a free people. He would ask the right hon. Baronet, however, if he did not think that this measure would have the effect of causing a greater conflict between the middle classes and the aristocracy; and whether he did not think that he was really doing a great injury to the social state by presenting to the world the want of harmony between the English middle classes and the English aristocracy? It was not true that the right hon. Baronet had been swayed by the threats of the Anti-Corn-Law League; but still that accusation would be brought against him. He prayed him not to persist in carrying out this measure in its integrity; for he would not in any degree compromise his own character or dignity by submitting to the strong opinion, or to the prejudices, if he would, of the higher classes of the community. Let him only give this question a fair chance of arrangement, either in this House or the other, and let him remember that he was not the Minister of one party, but of the whole community. Let him so modify this measure, and so adapt it as he could well adapt, it to the ultimate common sense of the whole community, and thereby establish the reputation of having brought about the settlement of this great question. Having settled this great question as he had other great questions, let him add the decision on the Com Laws to the question of decision on Catholic claims, and the great question of currency, and by this means let him show to the world that he had proved the Minister of no class and of no party, but the Minister of the entire community. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
MR. AGLIONBYwished to call the attention

731
of the right hon. Baronet opposite to a subject that was intimately connected with the Corn Law. He did not think that any person had yet ventured positively to predicate what must be the result of the great measure now before them. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected that there would be a diminution in the price of corn and of the money wages of the country, or that, thinking so, whether the labourer would not be greatly benefited. For himself, he looked to great advantages from the repeal of the Corn Law. Another result to be expected—and in this he was sure he expressed a sentiment which he had heard from the right hon. Baronet and others—namely, that whatever might be the results as to the price of corn sold by the farmer, that the produce of the country might be greatly increased by the application of capital and skill, and this for the general interest. It appeared to him that hon. Gentlemen in that House treated the general subject before them according to the experience which they had acquired in their immediate neighbourhood. They treated the question as it affected landlords, and not as it affected or might affect tenants. The way in which he wished to look at this question was the manner in which it would affect tenants in his part of the country—in Cumberland and Westmoreland. In these parts of the country, property was divided into very small parcels—the holders of these small parcels of land were designated "statesmen," analogous to yeomen in this part of the country. This class was composed, as the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department could testify, of very honest and very industrious persons. These were persons without much capital; and he wished now to show the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury how these men might be assisted in case this measure turned into a law. These persons had very little capital; they gave to the land their own industry and that of their families; their holdings varied from 150 to 200 acres, and were in their own occupation, tilled by their families and a few labourers. Now, though they had not capital, something might be done to relieve them from wanting it. Here was a very large class of Her Majesty's subjects holding under our ancient feudal settlement. They were copyholders. But there was another matter which was still worse. In the north of England they had a tenure of this description—that upon the death of the
732
lord of the manor, a two years' fine was laid upon every acre of land within the manor. Let the House consider the effect of this, and ask itself how the tenant could be expected to lay out capital for the improvement of his occupation? He did not refer to this as an objection to the measures of the Government; he only wished, that in the passing of those measures, justice should be done to the large class of persons who were subjected to those fines. Let them be enabled to lay out their capital without imposing upon them such fines—in short, do what the Committee of this House recommended in their Report of the 13th of August, 1838, in which they said—
"Your Committee have come to the conclusion that the abolition of the copyhold tenure would not only be a great public benefit, but that it should be made, if possible, a national object."
The importance of the question was as great now as then; and it would be very much increased when the measures of the Government had become law. He considered that every facility should be given for enfranchising such copyholds on a compulsory principle. At present he would content himself with drawing the right hon. Baronet's attention to the subject; and if he could do it without embarrassing Her Majesty's Government, he would like to bring forward a measure in some subsequent stage of the present discussion. If such a Bill could be passed simultaneously with the measures now before the House, he thought it would have the effect of inducing a considerable body of agriculturists to give their adhesion to the repeal of the Corn Laws.
SIR R. PEELhoped the hon. Member for Pontefract would not think he was guilty of any disrespect—a feeling which he entirely disclaimed—if he abstained on the present occasion from entering into a consideration of the arguments which the hon. Member had urged with very great ability. Such a course would have the effect of reviving the whole of the debate which had taken place on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerset. In the course of that debate, he stated the reasons which induced him to think that it was for the permanent benefit of all classes of the community, that a foundation should be laid for the complete adjustment of the Corn Laws. To that sentiment he deliberately, and on the fullest consideration, adhered; but he could not enter on the explanation of it without opening up the

733
whole question again. He apprehended there would be opportunities on future stages of the Bill of again discussing the general subject; and he did not think it would be for the advantage of any party to go into it at present. He must, therefore, state very generally his entire dissent from the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, that he should conciliate the support of any party by adopting the course proposed. He did not think that the agriculturists would be at all satisfied by the adoption of that course, but the contrary; nor would those who supported the measure of Her Majesty's Government, because it provided for the total repeal of the Corn Laws within a certain period, be willing to accept such a proposal as the present. As to the argument which constituted the chief ground of the hon. Member's recommendation, that he was the Minister of all classes, he was very much afraid that he should not fulfil their expectations by consenting to this Amendment. The question to which the hon. Member for Cockermouth had adverted was a very important one, and he very much desired it should not be connected with the present measure. It might be expedient; but it had obviously no particular reference to the proposal he had made on the subject of the Corn Laws. The hon. Gentleman said it would be a great advantage to a particular class, and so it might, to relieve them of their obligations; but there was another class who might not take exactly the same view, and might object to fines certain in lieu of improved value fines. At present the law gave certain facilities to those who wished to effect the conversion of their tenures; but if you could make some arrangement with the goodwill of both parties—the payer of the fines and the lord of the manor—quite irrespectively of the question of the Corn Laws, he believed it would be attended with very great advantages. A Committee was now sitting in another place to consider, the subject of peculiar burdens on agriculture, which would enjoy the best assistance on legal questions; and he was of opinion that it was very desirable that their consideration should be given to this question, and a special report made by them. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that there were two parties: it would be easy to sacrifice the rights of one by simple legislation; but the proposal to effect a settlement not by voluntary arrangement, but by some sort of compulsion, required very great consideration. He
734
had always regarded the expense and delay of transferring property as a great evil; if they looked to the state of the law in other countries, he believed they would find that in all there were greater facilities for the transfer of property than existed in this country. Such was the expense as well as delay now, from professional arrangements, unavoidably incident to the transfer, that he believed any one who had purchased a small property would be much inclined to come to the conclusion that he would never buy another. To diminish the impediments now existing to the transfer, was a point well meriting consideration; but he thought it would be very unwise to mix up this question with, that of corn—a subject of great, difficulty, and sufficient of itself to occupy the attention of the House.
MR. W. MILESagreed that they should throw no kind of delay in the way of passing this measure, after having fully considered and come to a decision on its principle. Amongst the different Amendments on the Paper, he could not see any in which he could concur; and a discussion on any of them would, of course, have the effect of opening the whole question of the Corn Laws. He thought, therefore, the disposition of the House would be best consulted by abstaining from unnecessary discussion. The intention of the party to which he belonged was, having discussed the subject fully and fairly, and placed their opinions before the country, to leave the country to speak for itself, when it should come to that election which they hoped was not far distant, and decide whether their view, or that of the right hon. Baronet, was the most advantageous for the country. With respect to this Amendment, he completely dissented from it, considering the principle of the existing Corn Laws as the best that had been proposed up to the present time. He wished to retain the law of 1842; and to all the Amendments he should give his decided opposition. Hitherto the varying systems of Corn Laws had entered comparatively little into the discussion; but there would be subsequent opportunities of showing that there would be such a declension of prices as would render it impossible for the present holders of the soil to maintain their position. He wished, before he sat down, to correct a misapprehension of the right hon. Baronet, with reference to a speech he had delivered on the Motion for going into Committee. The right hon. Baronet conceived that he had

735
stated, that, of the two propositions before the House—that of the right hon. Baronet and that of the noble Lord the Member for London, for total and immediate repeal—he should prefer acceding to the noble Lord's proposition. He had meant to state what was the opinion of the farmers generally throughout the country. He had said, that to both the proposals he should give his most decided opposition; but he added, at the same time, that, as far as the farmers were concerned, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, they would infinitely prefer the proposition of the noble Lord, and he then went on to show why. He had wished to defend his own consistency by stating his opinions, and did not mean in any way to derogate from his principles. He regarded the Resolutions as merely pro formâ; and he wished it to be distinctly understood in the country, that in allowing them to pass, they were decidedly opposed to each and all of them.
SIR R. PEEL: It would be most unjust to contend that, because the Resolutions were permitted to pass without a division, or the expression of much dissent, any compromise was entered into. They were necessary as the foundation of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman said was to be contested in its future stages; and it would be impossible justly to assert that those who acquiesced in the Resolutions, had abandoned their opposition in the slightest degree. But he could not compliment the hon. Gentleman on the clearness of his explanation. The hon. Gentleman hoped he had satisfied him (Sir R. Peel) that he had not derogated from his principles, most completely; he (Sir R. Peel) had never thought so: nothing was further from his intention than to impute to the hon. Gentleman any opinion that he wished the present amount of protection to be in the slightest degree abated. On the contrary, he thought the hon. Gentleman differed from the hon. Members for Huntingdonshire and Nottinghamshire, in being unfavourable to any modification of the Corn Laws. He thought the hon. Gentleman said, if we must incur the inevitable evil of a change in the Corn Laws, then he should decidedly prefer the proposition for an immediate repeal to that proposition brought forward by the Government. The hon. Gentleman decidedly preferred the maintenance of the existing Corn Law; but, he said, on the hypothesis that something must be done, and an extensive change
736
made, he preferred immediate to deferred repeal. That he understood to be the opinion of the hon. Gentleman; and, on referring to the usual records, he found his recollection confirmed in every particular. He had not in the slightest degree meant to impute that the hon. Gentleman derogated from his principles; but when he said, that if the noble Lord opposite would only stand to his guns he would be ready to support him, his conviction was, that he preferred immediate repeal; and the explanation now made did not interfere with that impression. The hon. Gentleman said, he would not enter into the question: neither should he; but he wished to diminish the authority of the hon. Gentleman as a prophet; and let him, therefore, remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1842, when he proposed the diminution of the duty on the import of cattle, the hon. Gentleman predicted an enormous downfall in the price of food. The hon. Gentleman approved of the Corn Law, but objected to that part of the Tariff of 1842, which provided for the removal of prohibition on the import of cattle, saying, there would be an enormous use of barley in the fattening of cattle on the coast of Holland; and, therefore, on that ground he proposed that the duty should be taken on the weight of the cattle, in order that we might be enabled to compete with those formidable rivals. He could not help reminding the hon. Gentleman that he had prophesied, in 1842, an enormous depression in the price of stock and meat, and that up to this period his prediction had not been realized.
MR. W. MILESsaid, he had meant to state that the farmers would prefer the proposal of the noble Lord for immediate repeal. But he had not intended to say anything contrary to what he had always proposed; he merely gave the out-of-doors opinion. With respect to the statement of the right hon. Baronet as to the opposition he had given to the Tariff in 1842, he attributed the rise in the price of meat to the immensely increased consumption of labourers employed on railroads, as well as to the disease among the cattle. Though he might be supposed to be a false prophet, he would still tell the House, that whether they took the duty off cattle or not, they might expect an annual increase from the Continent, which would work exceedingly well, not injuring any one, so long as the demand for labour continued. But when the demand ceased, that instant the

737
new Tariff would become oppressive to the tenant-farmer; and foreign wheat, when it was not wanted, would come into competition with the produce of our own farmers.
MR. BURROUGHESwished to advert shortly to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth. At a time when it would be necessary to call into operation all the productive powers of the soil, he thought it was the duty of the Government to remove every obstacle that was in the way of improvement; and he did not think that the right hon. Baronet was correct in his view of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, when he said that a commutation under that Act converted a fine certain into a fine arbitrary. He spoke with diffidence; but his opinion was, that upon the enfranchisement of copyhold land, under that Act, which was effected by the payment of so many years' purchase, as the case might be, no fine remained, and the tenure was altogether changed. That appeared to him to be an analogy between the mode in which the Highway Act was about to be dealt with, and the mode in which he would have the Copyhold Enfranchisement Act dealt with. And he could assure the right hon. Baronet he did not think a compulsory clause in the Copyhold Act would be half so unpopular as the compulsory clause which was about to be added, for the appointment of district surveyors, in the Highway Act. He wished to be understood as approving that intention, however unpopular it might be. He thought the appointment of district surveyors desirable; but what was the state of the law now with regard to copyholds? There was an Act for the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds; well, what was the consequence?—a copyright tenant complained that the fine was too high, and that the fees were forty times worse. The tenant would state that there was now a Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, under which proceedings were voluntary, certainly, but it would, in all probability, before long, be made compulsory. The value would be calculated upon the fines of preceding years; and so, he doubted not, out that since the passing of that Act, fines had been higher than before; and he knew that, like the district surveyors' clause in the Highway Act, the Act for the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds had been almost a dead letter. The right hon. Baronet had said, that the purchase of small estates was much checked on account of the expense. Now, nothing increased
738
that expense more than copyhold tenure; but there was a compulsory sale of small portions of an estate, to which parties were obliged to submit—he alluded to the compulsory sale of those pieces of land which were taken for railroads. He had superintended for himself and others the sale of several small portions of estates to railroad companies, and the trouble and expense of defining the copyholds was very great. He would not trouble the House at any greater length on the present occasion; but the subject having been mentioned, he did not like to remain entirely silent.
MR. HUMEthought few measures would tend more to the development of the productive powers of the soil than making the enfranchisement of copyholds compulsory. The more our tenures were simplified the better. He hoped measures would be adopted to carry out the recommendations of their own Committee on the subject.
SIR A. BROOKEwould, at that stage of the proceedings, address some observations to the House, explanatory of his reasons in giving his opposition to the measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government. He would principally confine himself to the operation of the measure as regarded Ireland; for however the interests of England might be involved, he maintained it would ten times more affect Ireland. It appeared to him very extraordinary that, during the whole of the debate, there was so little said as to the effects the measure might produce on Ireland. And of all the Irish Members who voted in favour of the Bill, only two attempted to justify that vote; and of those two, one was the follower of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell), while all of them assumed to themselves the exclusive privilege of watching over the particular interests of the poorer classes of Ireland. None of those Irish Members had good reason for the course they had taken — a course in opposition to their former sentiments and votes. Some reason ought to have been given for a change of conduct so extraordinary; for had there been any reasons adduced throughout the debate which were calculated to satisfy his own mind as to the propriety or the necessity of the measure before the House, or that it would tend, even in a comparative degree, to benefit the condition of the lower classes of the people of Ireland, it should have his cordial support. In considering the measure with reference to

739
Ireland, it struck him that it should be considered on its own intrinsic merits, and particularly as to its effects on Ireland. Every Gentleman present must be aware that in England a great mass of the population was almost exclusively dependent on manufactures for support; that was not the case in Ireland. There, few, comparatively speaking, derived support from such a source; and even those parties in Ireland who carried on factories, were themselves in a great measure dependent on the land to carry on their business; for instance, those who were extensively engaged in the linen trade were generally landed proprietors; they had large farms which they cultivated. And those labourers who were employed in manufactures, when their business became at all slack, had recourse to agricultural labour for the support of themselves and their families; with the exception of some artisans, masons, and carpenters, and even those could hardly be excepted, as in country places they had small farms to assist in the support of themselves and their household, so that he might fairly conclude that in Ireland all classes were dependent on the land. It was also evident that England was an importing country, while Ireland was an exporting country. The exports of Ireland to England, during the last year, in wheat, in barley, oatmeal, flour, and other articles of trade, amounted to nearly 5,000,000 l. of money. He would ask, would it be to the advantage of this country that that vast sum should be transferred to America or to other countries? Would it be to the advantage of Ireland to have an amount of 5,000,000 l. sent to foreign countries? He knew the reply would be made that it would be much better for the people of Ireland to consume their own productions; but the means to do so should be first acquired, which to some would be a difficult matter, as three-fourths of the population were a great portion of the year without any employment. One of the first things which should be considered as regarded Ireland was, to provide the people with employment, and which he would recommend to the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. He was one of a deputation who waited on the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to press on him the necessity of the construction of a canal from Lough Erne to Ballyshannon, which would afford employment to the poorer classes in that large district. The reply of the right hon. Baronet was,
740
that it would be more consistent for the landed proprietors to undertake the work. He would say that the landed proprietors were perfectly willing to assist to the utmost of their power, if the Government would give that encouragement which they ought, and which the circumstances of Ireland now imperatively demanded. It was, however, with regret he had to state to the House that there was not the slightest hope of any great benefit being conferred on Ireland, unless there was some security for peace, for tranquillity, and for security to life and property. As long as the present system of agitation continued, it would be impossible for anything to go on in Ireland either prosperously or happily. He regretted very much the absence of the hon. Member for Cork, as he wished to refer to a letter which was addressed by that hon. Member to the Conciliation Hall, Dublin, relative to the Bill which was now before the other House; and which would prove the little hope there was to benefit Ireland, while letters of such a description were addressed and circulated in that county. In the letter of the hon. Member for Cork he found the following passages, well calculated to keep Ireland in a state of excitement:—
"I am now anxious that the Association should distinctly understand the position we are placed in. The Association is most anxious to have the country free from the horrors of the wholesale murders of the clearance system, and of the often retaliatory and hideous assassinations. The Coercion Bill does not even purport to give any remedy for the crimes of the landlords; and it is more likely to provoke additional assassination than to check the progress of crime, or bring to punishment those who are already stained with the guilt of perpetrating those crimes."
Here there was, at least by implication, a charge against the landlords of Ireland, as if they were murderers; while, to speak the truth, there could not be taken, as a class, a more indulgent or a more useful body of men. The right hon. Baronet alluded to the potato disease. He would be sorry to damp the ardour or the zeal of Her Majesty's Government to provide against any contingency which might arise in Ireland; but still he was convinced that the accounts which the right hon. Baronet had received on the subject of the potato disease were greatly exaggerated. There might be in some districts a defalcation as to the potato crop, but there was in the country an abundance of corn. From a consideration of the whole subject, he felt himself compelled to oppose the measure introduced by the Government, because it would prove

741
prejudicial to the best interests of Ireland, and retard every agricultural improvement.
MR. ACLANDwould not enter into the question, but he wished to say that he was one of those who had been exposed to considerable odium for refusing to pledge himself to a course which was most impolitic. If they were going to suffer they had to thank those who had made unreasonable demands; and he had refused to pledge himself to the unreasonable proposition of not being content with less protection than they then possessed. He had not given his vote the other night without much consideration of the course he was taking.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENwould second the request to his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract not to divide the House on this Amendment. His hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire had said that all who voted against the proposition of the Government had pledged themselves to maintain the existing Corn Laws. Now, he thought he should speak for himself; and he begged to say that he expressed no opinion of the kind on that subject. He found a proposition of the Government before the House on this subject—he felt it his duty to oppose that proposition—and he should do so without stating what were the particular views he entertained on the maintenance or surrender of protection. He had seen enough of the process of Hansardizing going on in that House to know it was very disagreeable to be a Hansardee, and, therefore, he would not subject himself to it. All he would say, therefore, was, that he saw a Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws on the Table, that he objected to that Bill, and that he meant to vote against it.
MR. C. BULLERsaid, as the hon. Gentleman and his Friends were united, he presumed they were united for some purpose or other; and as they objected to the Motion for an alteration of the Corn Laws, it was but a fair inference that they were united in favour of the existing Corn Laws.
MR. BORTHWICK: Under the existing circumstances of the country, the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government was totally uncalled for; indeed, any measure on the subject of the Corn Laws was at present uncalled for, and unnecessary. Nor could he take into his favourable consideration any amendment which would imply any alteration in the Corn Laws at this time. He was, however, far from saying that circumstances would not
742
arise which might require a change; but those circumstances had not yet arisen. He agreed in opinion with that great philosopher, Lord Bacon, who declared that changes should never be made unless there would be a sufficient amount of good to counterbalance any evil which might result from the change. The present Corn Laws had worked extremely well; and it was most desirable that the present protection, which the present circumstances of the country imperatively demanded, should be continued.
MR. WARDsaid, he had hitherto looked upon the right hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. S. O'Brien) as the pink of consistency, the very mirror of agricultural chivalry. He was therefore astonished to hear the hon. Member, the Chairman of the Publication Committee of the Protection Society in Old Bond-street, who were pledged never, under any conceivable circumstances, to adopt any measure by which the agricultural interest would receive less than their present amount of protection—he was astonished to hear that hon. Member come forward with such a Mysteries-of-Udolpho sort of speech, and concede that he might be hereafter ready to adopt some such measure as this, or at least a modification of the present Corn Laws. Henceforward he should not know in whom to put faith. He had once the greatest reliance on the hon. Member; but he was obliged to confess with the greatest pain and regret that he could now place no more confidence in him (Mr. S. O'Brien), that on any other person on that side of the House. His confidence in them was reduced so low he could go no further.
MR. HUDSONwould assure the House that, in his own neighbourhood, numbers of small proprietors, who had in their occupancy one hundred acres of land and upwards, found it very difficult, under all the advantages which the present law afforded, to maintain their position. He would ask what must their situation then be when the proposed measure would come into operation? If it became law it was his firm conviction, and the conviction of the landed interest in his county (Yorkshire), whether Whig or Tory, that certain ruin would be the result. With reference to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and spoken of by the First Lord of the Treasury, he thought that to enfranchise copyholds by a compulsory law would be to do an act of injustice to the lords of the manors,

743
and to commit a wholesale system of robbery.
MR. S. O'BRIENwas sorry to find that the hon. Member for Sheffield had so little confidence in the Members of his (Mr. O'Brien's) side of the House, but he was happy to observe from the manner of the hon. Gentleman, that his confidence in himself was not at all diminished; and he desired further to remark, that when he (Mr. O'Brien) should enter into a statement of his reasons for opposing the measure, it would be for the gratification of those persons who had a better right to question him upon the subject than the hon. Gentleman.
LORD G. BENTINCKwould not make any apology for the few observations he was about to address to the House. He could assure, the hon. Member for Sheffield that there was no "shaking" on that side of the House, in their determination of upholding the interests of agriculture, and the other branches of domestic industry. He did not mean to say that the present system of protection was to remain permanent for all time and under all circumstances. If, for example, his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department were to come down to the House, and fulfil all the promises and recommendations he made to the country in 1826, and offer full compensation to agricultural interests; if he were to come down on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, and propose to deduct 30 per cent of all payments out of the Exchequer for that purpose, commencing with the Civil List, and going through all the annuitants on the public purse, and when he had got a reduction of 15,000,000 l. from the burdens of the people, and the greater portion of that amount was to be paid to the relief of agriculturists—they would not be so unreasonable as to say that they were not then in a condition to compete with any people in the world. Let them relieve agriculturists from the payment of tithes, from the payment of poor rates, from the payment of the malt tax, from the payment of the duty on home-distilled spirits, and from the payment of the hop duty, and they would defy every nation in the world in their agriculture; and no man would be so unreasonable then as to ask for protection, as they would be able to compete with any country. It was really impossible for him to say what proposition might not emanate from Her Majesty's Ministers: he was always in expectation of hearing something new. He
744
could assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, therefore, that they were not bound under every circumstance to ask for the same amount of protection as they then had, if those views of Her Majesty's Ministers were carried out, which they had been induced to expect from the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
MR. M. MILNESconsidered what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cockermouth had as much to do with the question under discussion as if he had delivered a dissertation on the state of New Zealand. He would not, after the House had listened to what had been said by the several Members who had addressed the House, ask them to retrace their steps for the last few hours, and go back to what he had laid before them. He still believed that he did right in making the proposition, not concurring in the opinions of hon. Members who had referred to it; and notwithstanding his own impression as to the advantage it would be to the public, he would withdraw his Motion, at the same time expressing his hope that at a future time he should have an opportunity of again bringing it under the consideration of the House, when it would be more favourably received.
Motion withdrawn.
Question again put.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, he had placed on the Order-book a Motion in reference to the question which had so long occupied the attention of the House. It was to give to their Colonies and Canada time to prepare for the great change that was proposed in reference to the Corn Laws, as he knew that they could not keep pace with the rapidity of the alterations, and would be unable to compete with the United States. He also considered, in reference to the farmers of this country, that existing contracts should regulate the councils of great nations. With regard to tenants-at-will, it was not necessary to come to any arrangement; but with leaseholders it was very different, and by withdrawing protection from them, they would inflict upon them a very great injury; yet his wish was not to interfere further than would merely protect existing rights. As hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, had considered it advisable to withdraw their Motions, it was probable he should follow their example. He saw many reasons for an immediate cessation of the existing protective duties, in order to meet

745
the wants of the Irish people, and he was anxious to see the question of the Corn Laws settled, because if they should have to contend against the great transatlantic republic, it would be desirable that they should have peace amongst themselves. He considered that there was nothing in the change proposed by the right hon. Baronet which was at all unconstitutional, as an alteration in the Corn Laws would be merely an administrative measure. The hon. Member concluded by withdrawing a Motion of which he had given notice to extend the period of protection to February 1, 1851.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEwas of opinion, that the proposition of the Government would have an injurious effect upon the country. He did not agree with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member, that the proposed Bill would give any security that protection should exist for the term of three years; for in case corn should rise to "famine, prices," he did not believe that the right hon. Baronet would retain even the 4s. duty; and that was an opinion in which the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Wood) who supported the views of the right hon. Baronet fully coincided. Should the right hon. Baronet remain in office for three months, which he considered would be the extent of it, they had no security by the proposed Bill, that he would not in that time propose an entire removal of protection; and if he did not do so, but went out of office, and the noble Lord the Member for the city of London should succeed him, could that noble Lord be upbraided for proposing an immediate repeal of those duties of which he had expressed his disapproval? When he looked at the state of that House, and considered the probability of the measure being again brought under discussion for an alteration of the Bill then before them, he thought it would be much better to have it repealed at once.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDexpressed his hearty concurrence in the measure of the right hon. Baronet, but thought that it would have been more complete if the repeal of the Corn Laws had been total and immediate; for the effect of its being only gradual would be to keep the farmers of the country, for the next three years, in a state of uncertainty and agitation. Till this question was settled by a total abolition of duty, it would never be settled; but it would be annually discussed. He was last Monday in the county of Hants,
746
at Winchester, and he asked several farmers what they thought of the Government majority; and nine out of ten, although they expressed themselves surprised, declared that they would prefer an immediate abolition of duty to its retention for three years. In this discussion it had been asked what was to become of the tenant-farmers? He would give an answer from his own experience. He was joint-treasurer to a charitable corporation, and pending the present proposition, one of the large farms belonging to it became vacant; they did not wish to continue their tenant, and applications for the farm were innumerable. They were at a loss to choose. One of their other tenants from Essex, who had been on a farm for some years, which he had brought to great perfection, applied for this, and he was asked 1,400 l. a year rent, instead of 1,200 l., at which it had before been let. He went into Yorkshire, returned, and took the lease; and today he (Alderman Copeland) had settled the terms of his lease, and he had taken the farm. [Sir J. GRAHAM: For how many years?] For fourteen years and a half. It might, perhaps, be said, the farm was underlet; but all he could say was, that the bite tenant had not been successful; and when he saw a man take a farm of 900 acres at 1,400 l. a-year, and go into it with a capital of 20,000 l., he was convinced that the tenant-farmers had no fear of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet. These were circumstances which weighed with him as a commercial man, and told more forcibly on the opinion he had formed of the project of the Government than any arguments he could hear.
MR. FINCHwould meet one case with another. He knew a farmer in the same county, Essex, who, not long since, in answer to his landlord, who was a free-trader, and who attempted to persuade him that, as the shackles of trade were about to be removed, he ought to take a new lease, said that, but for the capital he had already sunk in the farm, nothing would induce him to take a lease at the same rent, foreseeing the injurious effect which the removal of protection would have upon agriculture. The circumstances which might have induced the farmer to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded, to increase his rent were twofold: first, the land might have been greatly enhanced in value; secondly, the farmer might have been sanguine that the Government measure would have been

747
thrown out in the House of Lords, as a great many other agriculturists were.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid: Sir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether or no he has made up his mind as to what will be the probable operation of the Bill which he has introduced? I think that when the right hon. Baronet introduced the measure, he said he was unable to form any calculation as to its effects upon the price of home-grown corn. He then said, he had made no calculation whatever. A considerable time has since elapsed; and it surely must have struck the right hon. Baronet that the country is most anxious for the solution of the question, and to hear the opinion of Government upon the subject. I cannot avoid saying, Sir, that I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to tell the country what his opinion is—what he calculates will be the practical effects of the changes. So short a time ago, Sir, as the 10th of June last, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department predicted, with the greatest confidence, that if the total repeal of the Corn Laws took place, the average price of wheat could not exceed 45 s. per quarter. I think my right hon. Friend at the same time predicted, that if such would be the case, that all the most ancient land of England would be thrown out of cultivation. I wish to know whether anything has transpired since the 10th of June, to alter the opinion of my right hon. Friend as to the probable price of wheat in case this Bill is passed? I further wish to know what the right hon. Baronet proposes should be done with respect to the commutation of tithe. I think my right hon. Friend on a previous occasion said, he wanted time to consider what would be the effect of the alteration caused by the measure as regards tithe; but in June last, my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) showed that the revenue of "the most ancient land in England" would be almost entirely eaten up by the tithe if the Corn Laws were to be repealed. I want to know, Sir, whether the right hon. Baronet still thinks such will be the effect of this measure on these lands? My right hon. Friend was, I repeat, Sir, of opinion, at the time to which I refer, that a repeal of the Corn Law would drive most of the ancient land in England out of cultivation and into pasture; and my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government also expressed his opinion in 1841, that no higher protection
748
than a duty of 1s. per bushel would have the effect of entirely paralysing agriculture, and would be no protection at all to Ireland. Since the introduction of the measure, the right hon. Gentlemen have had time to consider what its probable effects would be; and I say again, Sir, that the country is entitled to hear the opinions of the Government on the subject. When the right hon. Baronet introduced the measure which is now law, he informed the landed interest what his expectations were as to the prices of wheat. He said he thought the price of wheat would average 56 s. per quarter, and would range between 54 s. and 58 s. My right hon. Friend then estimated what the protection was to be which would give such an average price. The right hon. Gentleman then, at all events, considered that a considerable protective duty was necessary in order to keep the price of wheat at 56 s. At that time, when the right hon. Baronet expected the price of wheat to be 56 s. a quarter, he calculated that foreign corn would be sent in at 40 s. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, in his address to his constituents on the 13th of February, 1845, stated, that it had been his opinion that a duty of 20 s. was more than sufficient protection; but then he admitted that subsequent experience had taught him that 20 s. duty was not one penny too much protection. I believe I am perfectly correct in making this statement, and that the right hon. Gentleman then said that a duty of 20 s. ought to be kept up. I ask that right hon. Gentleman, as well as the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any new circumstances have occurred within the last twelve months which can lead them to the conclusion that the price at which foreign corn can be introduced to this country would be anything less than from 40 s. to 45 s. per quarter? I repeat again, Sir, that it is but proper Government should give an opinion, for which the country is so anxious, upon what the effect of the measure will be, according to the opinion which, doubtless, they must have formed before this period. I distinctly ask the right hon. Baronet whether or no he has made up his mind as to what the effect of this law will be, and what that opinion is?
SIR R. PEEL: I think my noble Friend will see that I could not answer his question as to the price of wheat under the proposed measure, or its effect upon the tithepayer

749
or the titheowner. I believe it is understood that we are not to revive that discussion, which it was the general wish of the House should be postponed till the second reading of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord cannot have failed to have paid the same attention to my speech which I paid to his; and I assure my noble Friend I listened to that speech, which he delivered with much ability, with great satisfaction, whatever might be the observations it contained with regard to myself. In what I addressed to the House, I endeavoured to show two things; I endeavoured to show that there were causes in operation tending to diminish the cost of the production of corn, and which for several years had diminished the price of wheat; and I attempted to show that there had been within the last three years more agricultural improvement, and more application of science to the production of corn, than at any former period. I was charged with hastiness in disturbing this happy state of circumstances. Now, during the last three years, when you admit there was a greater amount of agricultural improvement than at any other period, the price of wheat has only been 51 s. I attempted to show that there were causes at work, extrinsically of the operation of the Corn Laws, which had a tendency to diminish the price of wheat. I then attempted to show that agricultural prosperity was not necessarily interwoven with the price of wheat, because on the average of several years previous to 1842, the price of wheat had been 67 s. per quarter; yet during the three years admitted to have been years of great agricultural improvement, the price had been only 51 s. I thought that a very strong proof that the prosperity of agriculture does not necessarily depend on the price of wheat. Now, I admit to my noble, Friend, I have no answer to make to him if he quote's Hansard; I admit to him if he searches through Hansard, he can find observations and speeches at variance with what I stated the other night. I began by simply stating, that after a close investigation into the question, I was ready to submit to the charge of inconsistency. I stated in the strongest manner that I did not want to be referred to speeches delivered at a former period, to know that my opinions had undergone a change; I said I did not wish to deprive those who had always advocated a repeal of the Corn Laws, of the full and entire credit due to them; and I must remind my noble Friend, that when the Motion of
750
the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers) was brought forward last year, I made a speech which Earl Grey described as a conclusive speech in favour of a gradual repeal of the Corn Laws. As to the effect of the present measure with respect to tithe, I am unwilling to enter into that part of the subject. I have already stated I would fix any day that maybe most convenient for the discussion on the second reading, I do not wish to throw any difficulty in the way of that discussion. I am ready to name any day, at a reasonably early period, for taking the second reading. The arrangement I propose is this—that the Report on the Resolutions should be brought up and received on Monday, and the Bill then brought in and read a first time; as the debate on the second reading is likely to be a protracted one, it might be inconvenient to begin it on the Friday; and I, therefore, propose that the debate on the second reading shall be taken on Monday week. This being the arrangement, I think it better to postpone any observations I may have to make till that debate; I could not merely answer the questions my noble Friend has put, and, therefore, I think it better to postpone my observations till that opportunity. As to the price of corn, if, as he says, I endeavoured by the Corn Law to give a guarantee that it should keep at a certain price, I could have attempted nothing so unwise. Under a higher rate of protection than that given by the Act of 1842, the price of corn was very much lower than subsequent to it; I believe in 1835 the price of wheat was as low as 35 s.; during the whole of that year the average price of wheat did not exceed 39 s. I think that subsequent to the passing of the present law, the price has been 41 s., 42 s., and not under 40 s., on the average of years. And among other considerations that induced me to change my opinion was, seeing that legislative enactments, even where the protection given by them was higher than that given by the present law, have entirely failed in securing a high price of wheat; if with the higher rate of protection the price has been as low as 39 s., should it, the year after the present change, fall to 39 s. again, the low price cannot be necessarily imputed to the meditated alteration in the law; because under a high protection we have failed for a whole year in securing to the agricultural interest a higher price than 40 s. I do not think the prosperity of agriculture depends upon the price of wheat.

751
I know a case in which eleven farms in the county of Roxburgh have been let since the proposal of the present alteration in the Corn Law; the valuation was made in October last, under the assumption that the present Corn Laws would be continued, and yet the whole eleven farms have been let at higher rents: this has occurred within the last fortnight. I believe also that five farms in the county of Lincoln, which had become vacant, have been relet since the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were made known; and in the case of each of these five farms an increased rent has been received. These facts confirm my impression that the prosperity of agriculture is not necessarily interwoven with the price of wheat.
MR. DISRAELI: I have no intention of trespassing on the House, but I feel bound to say that the right hon. Baronet has not answered the inquiry of my noble Friend. My noble Friend inquired whether the right hon. Baronet had, during the last six weeks, formed any opinion as to what extent the measure would affect the price of agricultural produce, and what the probable price of corn would be under the proposed measure? What my noble Friend said as to the opinions of Members of the Government three years ago, the right hon. Baronet has likewise passed over. I do not wish to enter into the general question. After what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, it would be neither becoming nor courteous to do so, until the second reading of the Bill; but I cannot avoid saying that I think the inquiry of my noble Friend a perfectly fair and legitimate one. I think my noble Friend has a right to ask if the Government has not, during the six weeks which has intervened since the introduction of the measure, formed an opinion as to how it will affect the price of agricultural produce. If the Government have not formed an opinion, we will accept that reply at the value which we choose to place upon it—it may guide our future conduct, and the opinion of the country. The inquiry does not trench on the general merits of the question; within these limits my noble Friend has confined himself; he has not received an answer, though I must say I think he was entitled to it. After what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, it would be unbecoming to press on him any general considerations. I am glad to congratulate the House on their deliverance from a great evil; and that henceforth there are to be no more quotations from
752
Hansard. I am glad myself that after this night Hansard is to be no longer recognised as an official authority.
SIR R. PEEL: The hon. Gentleman asked me for an answer which I had already given. I stated that it would be utterly impossible for me to estimate what the price of wheat would be whatever the state of the law was—that it is influenced by other circumstances. I cannot enter further into the question.
MR. FINCHregretted that a more satisfactory answer had not been given by the right hon. Gentleman. Every body knew that the price of wheat varied with the seasons and other circumstances; but the right hon. Gentleman might state what average he expected. When you took away a duty varying from 1s. to 20 s., could you say that it would not have an effect on the price of wheat? The responsibility of this measure must fall on those hon. Gentlemen who, in and out of the House, had placed their confidence in the Ministry; and they who could confide in their wisdom and discretion were bound to transfer their confidence to the Anti-Corn-Law League. He should have thought that the First Minister of the Crown, when he introduced a measure to affect one half the population of the United Kingdom, would have been enabled to give a satisfactory reply. How was it possible that landlords could enter into any stipulation with their tenants which could be satisfactory? Nobody could give an answer, and say what was to be the price of wheat three years hence. He asked, then, the hon. Member for Stockport, had he formed any calculation?
LORD G. BENTINCK: My right hon. Friend has not answered my question. I did not ask the right hon. Baronet to protect us from the influence of seasons, but a simple question, to which I think I have a right, on behalf of the country, to demand an answer before we go into the second reading. We have a right to know what the right hon. Gentleman estimates will be the difference, occasioned by the removal of protection as it now exists in the price of corn. I say again, the country has a right to know what the opinion of the First Minister of the Crown is on so important a subject—what difference the removal of protection will make in the price of corn. Let my right hon. Friend select any year—that year to which he adverted, 1836—when the average price of corn was 39 s. a quarter—whether on such a year as that the price of wheat

753
would, by the removal of protection, be lowered 5s., 10 s., or 15 s., or taking the price of wheat at 56 s., as it had been during other years, whether he thought that with no protection it will be 51 s., or 46 s., or 43 s.—what, in short, he expects the price of corn will be under the proposed law? The right hon. Gentleman had answered such a question in 1842; nay, he had volunteered an answer; and it has been usually the practice of all Ministers in introducing changes, to tell the country what was likely to be the practical operation of those changes.
SIR R. PEEL: It is because of my courage in 1842 that I hesitate now. But it is not that I ever gave a guarantee that the prices of corn would vary from 54 s. to 58 s. If my noble Friend will refer once again to Hansard, he will find that I distinctly stated it was utterly impossible, in my opinion, for any act of a Legislature to guarantee prices. I then distinctly refused to give any guarantee whatever. I stated that although I thought it probable there would be a variation from 54 s. to 58 s., yet that various other considerations besides the acts of a Legislature affected prices. My noble Friend refers to a case of corn being at 39 s. under a high state of protection. Now, after mature reflection on this subject, I am not at all clear that, if protection had been withdrawn, even at that period, the price of corn would have been lower than 39 s. I think it is highly probable that the exclusion of corn, and of a regular trade in corn, there being a high protection, did lead, under a succession of favourable harvests, to lower prices in this country more so than if for some years preceding there had been less protection. I am bound to state to my noble Friend that there are great difficulties in making a calculation of this kind. I am not prepared to admit that, if there had been a much diminished protection, or no protection at all, there would have been a lower average price for the year 1835 than 39 s. But, as I said before, it is very difficult to make any accurate calculation.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSthought that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite turned to that (the Opposition) side of the House as if they deemed all the responsibility of the repeal of the Corn Laws was there to be attached, it was only fair that they should learn what was the view there taken of the probable effect of the withdrawal of protection. The answer might be illustrated by an analogous case. A person who had
754
been persecuted with the solicitations of a beggar for alms, at last gave some money, and in doing so, he asked the mendicant what he would have done if his entreaties had been refused? The reply was, "Why, I should have been obliged to work." Now, the hon. Gentleman asked what would become of him if protection was withdrawn? All he could say was, that if he went and looked over his own property himself, and cultivated it better than he hitherto had done, he would, perhaps, become a better and a happier man.
COLONEL SIBTHORPventured on two or three occasions to express his astonishment at the position of the present Government — a Government which was once strong in every way, not only as regarded their own individual position, but also strong in the aid they received from their late supporters. He had taken the liberty to put some questions to the right hon. Baronet on former occasions. He asked, where were certain Members of that Government? he asked why were they not in that House? He received no answer; the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was silent, and so also was the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. Perhaps they delayed their answers waiting for precedents; perhaps they thought there were no precedents on the subject. But he was not without a precedent, and he could refer to Parliamentary records for the accuracy of which he might vouch: they were records to which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, as well as the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, had themselves referred. He put questions to know where were certain Members of Her Majesty's Government who were always esteemed important men in that House? He now repeated the question, why certain Members of the Government were not present in the House? Where was the Secretary for the Colonies? Where was the Secretary for Ireland? Where were the Irish Attorney and Solicitor Generals? And where were two Lords of the Treasury? [An HON. MEMBER: A new writ has been moved for one of the Lords of the Treasury to-night.] There was one still vacant; but ubi mel, ibi apes. For his precedent he found in one of the records of Parliament that a question was put by a noble Lord, a protectionist, the Earl of Darlington (now the Duke of Cleveland) in that House, on the 22nd of May, 1835:—

755
"Lord Darlington said, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Lord Palmerston is to be created a Member of the British Peerage, and thereby obtain a seat in the other House of Parliament? Or, whether any vacancy is likely to occur in this House, so as to enable him to procure a seat here? The public know nothing upon the subject, except that Lord Palmerston has been gazetted as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and it is highly important that the fact should be understood."
So he thought with respect to the present instances to which his question had reference. Lord Darlington added—
"If the noble Lord answer in the negative, I wish to ask, whether it be intended that the noble Lord should continue to hold the situation as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? I believe it is perfectly unusual, and almost unprecedented, for an individual not in Parliament to hold a Cabinet situation."
So, indeed, it was. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I was not asked that question.] No; nor would the right hon. Baronet have answered it. The answer was given by the noble Lord then the Home Secretary, now the Member for the city of London, who said—
"The noble Lord has asked me several questions, all of them of rather an extraordinary and novel nature. One is, whether it is the intention of the Crown to confer the dignity of the Peerage upon a certain individual? Next, whether it is the intention of any Member of this House to vacate his seat for that individual, or, as my right hon. Friend suggests, to vacate in that individual's favour by dying himself? The question then arises, whether, in that case, any particular body of constituents would be disposed to elect the noble Lord, who has heen referred to, as their representative in this House, or whether they would choose some other representative? There then arises a fourth question, or a fifth, whether, supposing none of those things to happen, it is intended that Lord Palmerston shall then continue Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Really these questions are of so extraordinary and novel nature, that I can only entreat the noble Lord to bring forward a distinct Motion on the subject."
Lord Darlington was then reported to have said—
"Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask him another question? The noble Lord talks of novelty; is it novel or is it not for an individual holding the office of Foreign Secretary to have no seat either in this or the other House of Parliament?"
Now he thought he might put the question in the same form touching the present Secretary for the Colonies, and the present Secretary for Ireland. To the latter question Lord John Russell, with that suaviter in modo which characterizes the noble Lord, replied thus:—
"I can only say that if the state of things of which the noble Lord complains had continued for
756
any length of time, these might be very proper questions; but as the absence of Lord Palmerston is merely a temporary one, I must decline giving any other answer than that I have already returned to the noble Lord."
Now, as to the length of time he (Colonel Sibthorp) should wish to be informed how much longer the present Secretary for the Colonies was to be non est inventus, and how much longer the Scretary for Ireland would remain absent for want of a seat in that House. He wanted to know when there was a chance of those two Gentlemen, who filled important situations in the Government of the country, appearing in that House. For himself, he thought the chance became every day less. The people of this country did not like tergiversation; and the more the conduct of the Government was exposed to the public, the less likely would be rendered the presence of those Gentlemen in that House. Formerly, he never put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, or to any Member of the Government, that he did not get a straightforward answer, which he hoped, as an humble Member, he was entitled to. If the right hon. Gentleman's conduct had been straightforward, then he (Colonel Sibthorp) had practised a very crooked course during the whole of his life. He had, during his twenty-two years' residence in this House, scorned to act a servile part to any one; and when he found a man profess one thing and perform another, it became him (Colonel Sibthorp) as an honest man to say—"The Lord deliver me from such company!"
SIR R. PEELcould not help remarking that the hon. and gallant Officer always forgot when he rose to ask a question, before closing his speech, to put the question. With respect to the offices to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, that of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had been filled up by the appointment of Viscount Canning; and the other office, that of one of the Lords of the Treasury, would be filled up by Monday next. These were the answers to the first inquiries of the hon. and gallant Officer; but if he further insisted upon an answer to his question as to when the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary for Ireland would obtain seats in that House, he must honestly confess that he could not give the hon. and gallant Member any positive answer. He would only remark that if the hon. and gallant Officer should think proper to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, he could assure him that his noble Friend (the Earl

757
of Lincoln) would be quite prepared to encounter him in his own city.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that with regard to accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, he believed that was an office for which application must be made to Government. Then he never would make that application. He would never disgrace himself so far; but he would tell the right hon. Baronet this, that if he would dissolve Parliament, he cared not even if the right hon. Baronet were himself to come to Lincoln, and with all the expectations that he might hold out to the citizens of Lincoln, he (Colonel Sibthorp) was quite prepared to meet him. He never bribed any man. He had no Treasury seats to offer; he had nothing but his own conduct—his principles and consistency to rely on. But with all this disadvantage he would invite the right hon. Baronet to the contest. Let him dissolve Parliament to-morrow, and send whom he liked, he would try a contest for the city of Lincoln, which he had had the honour of representing for twenty years, and his ancestors before him for a century and a half. With the support he could command, he would set the right hon. Baronet at defiance. There should be no tricks, no Anti-Corn-Law League manœuvres. He defied the right hon. Gentleman. He would stand upon his own character, his own consistency, his own conduct. Let the Anti-Corn-Law League men—let the Secretary for Ireland try; he would meet them, and would see whether they would dare offer such an insult to the citizens of Lincoln. He relied upon their consistency, and their Conservative principles.
MR. DISRAELIconsidered that it was clearly the duty of the House to inquire whether the First Minister, who had recommended this measure, took the responsibility of passing it through the two Houses of Parliament. The gallant Officer had referred to some circumstances which occurred in 1835, and which were of great notoriety. He did not suppose the noble Lord, who was connected with those circumstances, could deny their accuracy. He would recall to the right hon. Gentleman a precedent with respect to this question, which he thought would be entitled to a more direct answer than that which he had given to the question of the gallant Officer. When the Master General of the Ordnance, Sir George Murray, was deprived of his seat in that House, the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) rose and
758
asked whether the gallant Officer, the Master of the Ordnance, still attended the Cabinet Councils? If he (Mr. Disraeli) recollected aright, the right hon. Gentleman rose and said that his right hon. and gallant Friend had ceased to attend the Cabinet Councils. In his (Mr. Disraeli's) opinion, that answer recognised a great constitutional principle; and he could not understand why the House of Commons should lose sight of that principle. Therefore he begged leave to ask, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Secretary of State of the Colonies, who did not occupy a seat in the House of Commons, was still in the habit of attending Cabinet Councils?
SIR R. PEELsaid, that he believed there had been no Cabinet Council held since his right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone had been appointed Secretary to the Colonies, which he had not attended. His right hon. Friend was a Member of the Cabinet, and attended the Cabinet Councils, although he was not a Member of that House.
MR. DISRAELIunderstood, then, the right hon. Baronet to say that he approved of Mr. Gladstone being a Member of, and attending Cabinet Councils, although, in the year 1835, the right hon. Baronet did not approve of Sir George Murray attending those Councils, he not being at the time a Member of the House of Commons.
SIR R. PEELdid not recollect under what circumstances Sir G. Murray, at the time the hon. Gentleman referred to, did not attend the Cabinet Councils, nor did he recollect that the reason he (Sir R. Peel) assigned for the right hon. and gallant Officer not attending those Councils was that he was not a Member of Parliament. Until he referred to the Parliamentary records, he could not speak upon the subject.
VISCOUNT POLLINGTONsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet had invited the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for the city of Lincoln to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, that he might afford an opportunity of a contest on the part of Lord Lincoln, he (Lord Pollington) as a voter for the county of Nottingham would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was not satisfied with the defeat which the noble Lord had already experienced?
COLONEL SIBTHORPinvited Sir R. Peel to meet him next Friday at the corn market in Lincoln. He would entertain the right hon. Gentleman generously, and give him the best bottle of wine he had

759
in the House; and then he would accompany the right hon. Baronet to the farmers' ordinaries and give him an opportunity to judge of the temper of mind that prevailed amongst them.
MR. GREENE(the Chairman) then proposed the First Resolution, which reduced the duties on corn, grain, meal, or flour, which put and agreed to.*
SIR R. PEELsaid, it had been suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) that buck-wheat, Indian corn, or maize, should be included in the First Resolution, instead of standing among the miscellanous articles in the Second Resolution. He therefore proposed to embody in a distinct Resolution those articles, and he hoped there would be no objection to this. [Mr. MILES: I object to that course.] The suggestion of the noble Lord was, that the duty should be immediately relinquished on those articles (buck-wheat, maize, or Indian corn); but he (Sir Robert Peel) having entered into an engagement that with regard to articles which were to be included in the new Corn Law he would not exercise on the part of the Treasury the power which they usually exercised, of remitting the duty immediately after the Resolution passed the House, but that the duty in respect to those articles should not be remitted until the Bill should have passed the House of Lords and have received the Royal Assent, he could not include buck-wheat, maize, and Indian corn in the First Resolution. He however, had hoped that there would have been no objection to the exercise of the power which the Treasury possessed in respect to these latter articles, should the House pass the Resolution proposed. The whole amount of duty would thus be remitted at once. He regretted that the hon. Member for Somersetshire should oppose this. He moved—
"That in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles under-mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following Duties shall be charged, viz.

s.

d.

Buck-wheat, the quarter

1

0

Maize or Indian Corn, the quarter

1

0

— Meal, the cwt.

0

4½

Rice, the cwt.

1

0

— of and from a British Possession, the cwt.

0

6

— rough and in the husk, the quarter

1

0

— of and from a British Possession, the quarter

0

1

MR. O'CONNELLsaid, that the strongest
* For Resolutions, see Vol. lxxxiii., p. 283.
760
sympathy had recently been expressed by the House towards Ireland, and he was sure it was sincere. Now it would be exceedingly beneficial to Ireland if the duty on Indian corn, buck-wheat, and maize, were remitted. He would not press hon. Gentlemen to do anything against their principles; but if, consistently with their principles, they could accede to this propo-position, he would most respectfully ask them to allow that these articles should be admitted at once duty free.
MR. MILESsaid, that though it was not his intention to throw any opposition in the way of the Resolution immediately, he, at the same time, wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that when they came to take maize from the Tariff, and deal with it as if it were in the Corn Bill, they would materially affect the agricultural interest, not only as regarded the price of wheat, but also the price of barley and oats. His hope and trust was, that the right hon. Baronet merely wished to take the vote on it to-night; but what description of vote would it be? Was it that it should pass under the shilling duty immediately? If the Committee came to that conclusion, he for one would at once give it a decided negative. If the Government pleased on their own responsibility to take maize from the Tariff, it was necessary at once to take the objection. It was quite impossible for him (Mr. Miles) to bring forth all the arguments which justified his objections, as he did not know that this question was to come on. He wished that they should have some discussion on the subject. Notice of Motion was given at the very end of last Session, when no one was in the House, that there was an intention to move this Session for a total repeal of the duty on the article of maize. He believed that no observation was made on the subject at that time. It was said by the right hon. Baronet, that maize was used in America for fattening animals. He represented in the House of Commons that it was food fit for pigs; but the American papers said that those who were the authors of such a statement very much resembled swine themselves. The papers also confirmed the statements made by the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who said that from his long residence in America he was well aware that what were there called "Johnny Cakes," went far to supersede the Yorkshire cakes. This maize then must come in direct competition not only with wheat,

761
but also with barley and oats, and therefore he thought that this discussion must come on at some period, in which hon. Members might have an opportunity of stating their opinions with respect to it. When they talked of the quantities of wheat produced in the United States, they ought to recollect the large quantities of maize that were produced also. There were seven hundred millions of quarters produced there last year. The produce was enormous. He was in hopes that it would come under the Corn Bill, and scarcely thought it right immediately to enter into a discussion on it. All he would say was, that it was his determination, if the Ministers proposed taking it out of the Tariff, to object to the Resolution.
SIR R. PEELmust, in justice, say that he had directly called the attention of his hon. Friend to the proposal, hoping it would answer his views. Some time since his right hon. Friends had taken upon themselves the responsibility, to lessen the pressure in Ireland, of ordering a large quantity of Indian corn from the United States, for which act they must ask for the indemnity of Parliament. He had reason to believe that many benevolent individuals looked upon it as a substitute for potatoes, of which he assured the House there were alarming accounts, and that if Indian corn were admitted duty free, individuals would at once spend a large sum in the purchase of Indian corn as a substitute for potatoes. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that Indian corn properly prepared might make excellent food, and when the existing pressure was overcome, might make the best substitute for potatoes. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether he might not allow the Resolution to pass through Committee to-night, on the understanding that it should be reported the first thing on Monday, on which occasion it would be competent for the hon. Gentleman, if he so chose, to raise his objection. He thought that this arrangement might be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, who would then have an opportunity for consideration in the interval, and perhaps would see the advantage of admitting Indian corn, not only for the purpose of feeding cattle, but also for the purpose of feeding the people in the present emergency in Ireland. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that Ministers might admit maize duty free by an order in Council, that would be a most unconstitutional proceeding while
762
Parliament was sitting, and would form a most dangerous precedent.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he should have been greatly surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, if he had not recollected the extraordinary objections raised by him on a former occasion. He was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman must see on a little consideration that he would be not only consulting the wishes of the House, but also those of the country, if he acquiesced in the proposition of the right hon. Baronet. No doubt the protectionists would not object to allow maize to come in, if, by so doing, they could only keep out wheat; but surely in the present day it could not be made an objection to the introduction of maize, that human beings would get a portion of it, and that it would not be confined exclusively to brute beasts. Considering the state of Ireland, he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would withdraw their opposition to the present proposition; or else, if they went on at this rate, they would not only lose their Corn Laws, but their character.
MR. MILES, though perfectly prepared to discuss the subject, yet knowing that certain objections were raised in the country to the introduction of maize, he thought it his duty to get up and to state shortly what those objections were. Hon. Gentlemen, when discharging their duty, should not be lectured so severely even by Corn Law repealers. He thought, though in opposition to the hon. Member, he had always given the hon. Member credit for honest motives, and he trusted that his own motives would not be impugned. He ought not to be held up to disapprobation, as expressing opinions which he felt to be inconsistent with reason. The Government had provided a large quantity of Indian corn for the consumption of the Irish people. He did not think that anything could be more legitimate than that, before a famine occurred, fearing that it might occur, the Government should take Indian corn out of bond duty free. But when it came to a question of having our markets inundated with this maize from America, it became quite necessary to interfere against any such proposition; and, at all events, their conduct in so interfering should not be thus impugned.
LORD G. BENTINCK: Sir, I cannot quite concur in the necessity which is alleged to exist for taking this maize out of bond; inasmuch as, practically speaking, I do not myself see the difference, in point

763
of advantage, between the Government paying the duty, and other parties doing so, for the Government would only pay it with one hand, and receive it with the other. I don't see any necessity for any hurry in respect of maize, more than exists in regard to any other articles of grain. I, for one, do not concur in the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government in proposing to feed the Irish people with maize; but, at the same time, it is not a point upon which I wish to quarrel with them, inasmuch as I conceive that, in that particular, they have acted to the best of their understanding. My own opinion, however, is, and I feel it strongly, that the true way to benefit Ireland would have been to have purchased Irish oats in the very localities in which the potato disease prevails; and I apprehend that the expense of feeding the Irish upon oats would have been very little greater than that of feeding them on Indian maize; whilst I am persuaded it would be a great blessing to many who are suffering from the disease in the potatoes, if they had thus found parchasers for their oats. I am not an Irishman, nor have I any property in Ireland; but if I at all understand the state and condition of agriculture in that part of the kingdom, and of the Irish population generally, almost every Irishman cultivates oats as well as potatoes, and sells his oats in order to procure the other necessaries of life. Now, if the Government introduce a great portion of maize into Ireland they will necessarily reduce the price of Irish oats; but, on the other hand, if they buy Irish oats, they will furnish that portion of the Irish population that is suffering under the potato disease with the means of buying those other necessaries of life. I think, then, that the Government committed a great mistake in buying maize, instead of going to Ireland and purchasing Irish oats—instead, in short, of feeding the Irish people on their own oats. Besides, I am persuaded it would have been more agreeable to the Irish people, and that they would have much preferred to be fed upon oatmeal, than with a food with which they are not acquainted, and to which their taste is not adapted. By sending to America, too, for maize, you have sent at the same time much money out of the country; whereas, if you had sent to Ireland and bought Irish oats, you would have enriched that country to a certain extent, and you would have increased instead of reducing the price of her oats. I do not approve of mixing up the potato famine with a matter
764
that relates to feeding cattle rather than human beings, and there is consequently no necessity for any hurry in admitting maize free of duty.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he did not propose to include buck-wheat and maize in the Corn Bill. The Corn Bill, which provided for the admission of rye, beans, barley, oats, and wheat, he proposed should be read a first time on Monday next, and he would fix the second reading for Monday week. It was not proposed to include the other articles which had been referred to in the Corn Bill; indeed rice never was included in the Corn Bill. The proposal which he made to the hon. Member for Somersetshire was, that he should permit these Resolutions to be voted in Committee to-night, and that the discussion should take place upon the Report of the Resolutions on Monday next, and should have precedence. He would make one remark in reply to his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck). The noble Lord said that the Government ought to have purchased Irish oats in Ireland, and the effect of that would have been to raise the price of oats in that country. That was very true, but then a great part of the population of this country — the manufacturing population of the west of England, derived their supply of oatmeal from Ireland. He referred to the west of Scotland and the west of England; and he would ask the noble Lord, whether he thought it just, that by an unusual intervention of the Government in purchasing Irish oats, and thereby raising the price, they should raise the price of the main article of subsistence in the west of Scotland, Lancashire, and Wales; and at the same time have refused any alteration in the Corn Law. That was one of the causes which he foresaw. There would have been complaints in those parts of the country where the price of food had been raised, not only that there was no alteration in the Corn Law, but that by the intervention of the Government they had raised the price of the chief article of their consumption. That was one of the points which they foresaw would make it difficult to refuse an alteration of the Corn Laws.
MR. S. CRAWFORDconsidered that the Government had acted wisely in not interfering with the price of oats in Ireland; for, by their not doing so, many in Ireland were now able to supply themselves with oats, who could not have purchased them had the price been raised upon them. In this matter, then, he was bound to say

765
that the Government had exercised a wise discretion.
LORD J. RUSSELLremarked, that no one could refuse to the hon. Member for Somersetshire the credit of believing that he was influenced by feelings of humanity on this and other subjects; and he must also add, that he was not surprised that to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member should have made some objection. He did trust now, however, that the hon. Member would consent to the proposal; adopt these Resolutions in Committee that night, and take the discussion on Monday. The whole difference in the matter must be, that by adopting this course, they would take the discussion a few days sooner than it would otherwise come on. These articles were contained in the Tariff; but the Tariff might be delayed from various causes. As he understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, it was that these articles might be admitted immediately at a low duty. He had also to add that he thought the Government had exercised a sound discretion in ordering a supply of Indian corn; for if they had purchased the oats in the markets in Ireland in the name of the Government, they would have raised the price of food; whilst now they had, without raising the price, added to the quantity of food in the country. But then came the question whether such Indian corn should be admitted free to meet an emergency, or be permitted to be introduced permanently? That was a proper question to consider, and it would be quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment to the effect, that Indian corn should be only admitted for a certain period, or for the recommittal of the Resolution. He trusted that when the question was discussed, it would be debated with calmness, and with a due consideration for the present state of Ireland. The hon. Member for Somersetshire was fully justified in seeking for discussion, and he saw no objection to its being taken upon the Report of the Committee.
The EARL of MARCHhoped, after what had fallen, from the noble Lord the Member for London, that his hon. Friend would withdraw his objection for the present. He was surprised, however, to hear the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government say that the state of Ireland now required the immediate passing of these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman knew of that state when he brought forward his Tariff;
766
and now, in the course of a few weeks, he took these articles out of the Tariff, and wished to press them on the attention of the Legislature.
MR. DISRAELIwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman what quantity of corn had been imported by Her Majesty's Government into Ireland?
SIR R. PEELreplied, that orders had been given to purchase Indian corn and rye to the amount of 100,000 l.; but what quantity of corn had been purchased with that sum he did not recollect.
COLONEL SIBTHORPunderstood that the hon. Member for Durham, who was fond of imputing motives to his opponents, was a prominent character in the Anti-Corn-Law League; and then there was the hon. Member for Bolton, who was the chaplain in ordinary, or the extraordinary chaplain of the League; and he wished to know from both, when they talked so much of their humanity, why they did not give 50,000 l. to relieve the Irish? Let the hon. Member for Durham, and the League, act on their philanthropy, and down with the dust. Don't let them lay out their money in buying up votes, and bringing over to their opinions those unlearned persons who, he was sorry to say, were too unsuspecting of their tricks.
MR. C. GORINGsuggested to the Government that in Committee of Supply they should propose a vote of 100,000 l., to pay for the Indian corn required by the necessities of Ireland.
MR. W. MILESsaid, that for the purpose of showing his desire to relieve the distress which was threatened, he was willing to add a proviso to the Resolution or to-night, empowering the Government to take out of bond or to import maize, buck wheat, or Indian corn, free of all duty, for the next three months.
MR. BRIGHTwished to say a few words with regard to the permanent duty to be levied on Indian corn. The duty of 1s. on Indian corn would often be six per cent upon the cost in America, and generally five per cent. The Government might have some object in continuing this duty; but if the principle of no duty was satisfactory in the case of cotton and other articles, and no inconvenience was experienced at the Custom-house, he thought that the right hon. Baronet might be willing to reduce this duty, if any were required for registration, to one penny the quarter, or else allow it to come in entirely free. He wished to know if this subject had been

767
under the consideration of the right hon. Baronet and his Colleagues?
SIR R. PEEL: The duty was, in fact, a merely nominal one; and considering the very extensive reductions proposed on other sorts of grain, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not oppose this part of the measure.
MR. W. ELLISassured hon. Gentleman that, in consequence of the delay which had taken place, and the uncertainty which prevailed with regard to the measures before the House, a great check to employment was experienced in the manufacturing districts.
The first five articles in the Tariff were also agreed to as follows:—
"Resolved—That in lieu of the Duties on Customs now chargeable on the articles under-mentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following Duties shall be charged, viz.

£

s.

d.

Agates or Cornelians, cut, manufactured, or set, for every 100 l. value

10

0

0

Ale and Beer of all sorts, the barrel

1

0

0

Almonds, Paste of, for every 100 l. value

10

0

0

Amber, Manufactures of, not enumerated, for every 100 l. value

10

0

0

Arrow Root, the cwt.

0

2

6

— of and from a British Possession, per cwt.

0

0

6

Resolution to be reported.
House resumed, and Committee to sit again.
Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Cavan, and from Leitrim, in favour of the Protection of Life (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill.—From Bossington, and several other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS, having presented a petition from the High Sheriff and Grand Jurors of Leitrim in favour of the Bill, said, he thought perhaps the most

685
convenient course he could pursue would be to explain the Amendments intended to be proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and afterwards to state his views of the various Amendments proposed by different noble Lords. The first Amendment which he intended, on the part of the Government, to ask their Lordships' concurrence in, had been suggested to him by a noble Lord a Member of the other House of Parliament. The effect of it would be to give the Bill, in some degree, a retrospective effect, by enabling the Lord Lieutenant to charge on a district already proclaimed under the existing law the expenses of the supernumerary police now employed there. The second Amendment was to Clause 17, for the purpose of including tea and coffee-shops in the operation of the clause; for he saw no reason why places where tea and coffee, though not malt liquors and spirits, were sold, should be exempted from visits of the police. The next was a proviso that all offences under this Act should be tried at assizes of Oyer and Terminer, or general gaol delivery. He now came to the Amendments of the Lord Chief Justice. The first proposed that no proclamation of a district should take place until application had been made for that purpose to the Lord Lieutenant by three justices of the peace for the same county, in a form provided. But to him (the Earl of St. Germans) it appeared that where arbitrary power was vested in the Executive Government, it was better that the whole and undivided responsibility for the exercise of such power should be left on the Executive. There were official reports made to the Executive Government daily of the outrages committed in every part of Ireland; and he thought, therefore, the power alluded to should be confined solely, and without any intervention, to the Lord Lieutenant. He did not propose, therefore, to adopt that Amendment, or to introduce another in its place. With respect to the next Amendment of the Lord Chief Justice, he should be most anxious to introduce some provision to carry into effect the spirit at least of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. As the Bill stood at present, an individual who was taken into custody by the police, being out of his House between the hours of sunset and sunrise in a proclaimed district, must remain in custody until he was delivered in due course of law. The Lord Chief Justice's Amendment went to give the magistrate,
686
before whom he was to be taken before noon the next day, the power of dismissing him if he was satisfied with the reasons he gave for being out of his House, or if not of committing him to gaol. But that, it appeared to him, would place the magistrate in a very invidious situation. In all probability the magistrate would be either the landlord or the near neighbour of the person arrested, and he would be loth to take on himself the responsibility of committing a man, if he could give anything like a plausible excuse for his having been out. But it was intended that petty sessions should be held once a week at least in every proclaimed barony: he thought it better that such a prisoner should be brought before the petty sessions, and that the magistrates at such petty sessions might liberate, or bail, or commit to gaol these offenders when brought before them. These were all the Amendments of the Lord Chief Justice; and when the noble and learned Lord saw the Amendments of the Government, he (the Earl of St. Germans) could not help thinking the noble and learned Lord would see that in spirit, if not in letter, they embodied the objects the noble and learned Lord had in view. With respect to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) respecting the change of venue, he (the Earl of St. Germans) must say he hoped the noble and learned Lord would withdraw it, and bring the subject forward in a general and comprehensive form, providing for the removal, of the venue both in cases of misdemeanors and of felonies, In cases of felonies the prisoner had the right of challenge, but not in those of misdemeanors; of the two, therefore, a power of changing the venue was more wanted in the former, which the noble and learned Lord did not provide for, than in the latter, which he did. It was well known that the main difficulty in Government trials in Ireland was the procuring of witnesses. No change of venue could secure the personal safety of a witness. On his return to his home he would be subject to the same ill will as if the cause had been tried at his own county town. He hoped, therefore, the noble and learned Lord would consent, to bring in some general and comprehensive Bill. Now, with respect to the Amendments of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), the object of the first was to deprive the Judges of the power of transportation for being out after the hours proscribed in the Bill. The

687
only vindication of this measure was as the application of an extraordinary though necessary remedy to an extraordinary evil. To that principle the House, as it appeared to him, had already assented. If it were necessary, then, to put a stop to these disturbances, the question came, what punishment was sufficient to deter from the commission of such offences? The object of all punishment was to deter effectually. Now, what criminals in Ireland dreaded the most of all punishments, was transportation. He believed that one or two examples of punishment of these offenders by transportation would produce more effect than a multiplication of examples of imprisonment, which was the object of the Amendment of the noble Earl. In 1835, Mr. O'Connell had approved of that part of the Coercion Bill of 1834, which had been called for, he said, by the Catholic clergy; for he said he knew to what crimes absence from home at nights led, and he professed himself ready to adopt the regulation permanently, and insert it in the Whiteboy Code. He added, that as long as the people in the disturbed districts were not prevented from going out at nights, so long would they have these offences committed. To prevent that was the only means of success. That provision would have the effect of protecting life and property; and no injury would be inflicted by preventing a man leaving his House at night to commit outrages. [The Marquess of LANSDOWSE: But Mr. O'Connell says nothing about transportation.] No, but he was giving his opinion of the terrible nature of the crimes which that punishment was destined to aid in repressing. In fact, this was the case: they could not punish criminals; they could not procure the necessary witnesses; and they had no resource, therefore, but attempting to prevent the crimes which they could not punish. Unless they inflicted what might appear a disproportioned punishment, they would not succeed in their object. But to return to Mr. O'Connell's opinion upon former similar measures. In reference to the Bill of 1834, he stated that it intended to remedy great evils—systematic agrarian outrages. The only infringement upon public liberty was the power given to deal with those who were found out at night, and if successful, it would produce the greatest blessings to Ireland. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that the offence to be punished under the measure was simply that of being out at night.
688
They had to do with the possible case of men going abroad to commit outrages, or actually engaged in their perpetration—of which no actual evidence could be procured. Suppose the case of men being discovered wandering about at night with pistols in their pockets—a crime or crimes having been committed in the neighbourhood, of which, although no witnesses could be brought forward, no moral doubt existed as to the perpetrators—by the ordinary law, men found under such circumstances could not be questioned by the police. It was such cases that the Bill under consideration was designed to meet. He had already trespassed upon the House in entering at some length into the details of the cases, on the occurrence of which the necessity for the Bill was founded; but he did not think that noble Lords who were prepared to withhold from the Judges of the land that power which he contended was essential for the safety of life and property, could be aware of the real state of things. Those who doubted it could not be aware of the numerous representations which had been made to Her Majesty's Government by grand juries, without distinction of party or religion. On the 10th of November, last year, the magistrates of the north riding of the county of Tipperary agreed to a representation, stating, that on no former occasion had there been serious grounds for more apprehension and alarm even in that county than at present; that the varied character of agrarian outrage seemed now to have settled into a systematic course of private assassination, utterly defying all the powers of the law, and urging some more stringent enactment, without which they much feared that the foundations of society would be shaken. The document then proceeded as follows:—
"During the summer months a short period of calm, as usual, succeeded; but we have now, with the deepest regret, to inform your Excellency, that not only has the approaching winter been ushered in by several murders or attempts to murder, occurring in rapid succession; not only have we to deplore the awful death of Mr. Patrick Clarke, a most respectable gentleman of amiable and inoffensive character, but we have evidence to satisfy us that the lives of very many persons, whom we could name, are in imminent danger. A wholesome dread and terror of law does not exist; but, on the contrary, our county seems to be in the possession of a set of hired assassins whom the law cannot reach; and we are only surprised, that among the middle and lower classes, in their unprotected state, individuals can occasionally be found bold enough to come forward as witnesses in a court of justice. We feel convinced that all sources of information are dried up

689
through the sympathy of the ill-affected, and the intimidation exercised towards the well-disposed. We do not dwell on the numerical amount of crimes committed, because it is to their character that we wish to point attention; ejectment from land is no longer the sole origin of these sad occurrences. The slightest cause is now sufficient to endanger life, and no one can tell when that may arise. We do not urge the insecurity of landlords' rights; we do not complain of want of support being afforded to ourselves by your Excellency's Government; but we point attention to the insecurity of the peasant's hut, to the scenes of desolation there constantly occurring, to the prevalence of that species of crime which saps the root of overy virtue, and is rapidly eradicating all trace of the original character of the Irish peasant. In the name of God and our country, we protest against such a system being further allowed to continue with impunity. In the firm belief that no one more than your Excellency regards with horror and detestation the state of things to which we have alluded, and which we make bold to say is not exaggerated, and in the earnest hope of some prospect being afforded us that an early application will be made to Parliament to strengthen the hands of the Executive by the enactment of some Statute which shall decisively check the existing system of assassination, we now beg leave to present to the representative of our Sovereign this humble and dutiful Address, to which we shall await the reply with the utmost anxiety."
This document was signed by Lord Dunally, a man of very liberal political opinions, an excellent landlord, and in no way a supporter of the present Government. It presented a most melancholy picture, which he believed no measure short of that which Her Majesty's Government had proposed would be sufficient to change. Many persons well acquainted with the state of Ireland were of opinion that the measure fell short of what was necessary; but it was the anxious wish of the Government not to go a step beyond what was requisite for tranquillizing the country. There were one or two other communications which he should wish to read to the House; and the first was one from the county of Roscommon, dated July, 1845. It was as follows:—
"We, the undersigned, grand jurors of the county of Roscommon, assembled at Summer Assizes, 1845, deeply regret to express our conviction that the present condition of our county is most alarming, and that, fearful as its present state may be, it is likely to be much worse when the long nights of winter afford additional facilities to the disturbers of the public peace. We are satisfied that a most wide-spread conspiracy exists, and is daily extending its limits; that immense quantities of arms and money have been collected by the disaffected; that committees of assassination are regularly organized and supplied with instruments to carry out their orders; and that jurors, witnesses, and all classes of the population are subject to the direst intimidation. That a very large addition has been made to our police force, and one
690
which, in its present overtaxed condition, the county is badly able to endure; that the best exertions are being made by the local and stipendiary magistracy, but that, notwithstanding, crime remains unpunished, outrage unrepressed, and confidence unrestored, and matters are daily becoming worse; so that, unless some adequate steps be taken to render the laws and their administration effective, the whole framework of society must be rent asunder. It does not become us to dictate specific measures to Her Majesty's Government, but we feel it an imperative duty to lay before them the condition of our county; and we beg to assure them, that in any measures they may deem necessary for the restoration of public order, they may reckon on every co-operation which we, in our capacities of magistrates or landed proprietors, can in our respective localities possibly afford."
This was signed, among others, by the O'Conor Don; and he would ask, was he a man likely to recommend any measure that he thought of an unnecessary arbitrary character? The next memorial he would refer to was from the same county, and was adopted at the spring assizes of the present year. The grand jurors in this document urged upon his Excellency and the Legislature the adoption of some decided measures for the suppression of assassination in Ireland, and observed that no measure would be effective unless accompanied by a rapid and summary mode of trial and punishment in the proclaimed districts. This was signed, among others, by Mr. Denison, a gentleman of influence and also of liberal opinions. He mentioned the fact of these gentlemen having signed such memorials, to show that even those who opposed the Government on political grounds took the same view with them on this important matter, and that the course which Government was now adopting had no connexion with political or party matters. He believed that that very day their Lordships must have been shocked to hear of the attempt which had been made to assassinate a gentleman who was once a Member of the other House of Parliament, one of the most humane men and best landlords in Ireland — he meant Sir David Roche. Here was a letter from the Lord Lieutenant to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, containing an account of this occurrence:—
"Dublin Castle, March 4, 1846.
"My dear Sir James—I regret to say that intelligence has just reached us that Sir David Roche and Mr. Lyons, two magistrates of the county of Limerick, were fired at on Monday, about four miles from the town of Limerick, where they had been to attend the grand jury. The occurrence took place at about 7 o'clock in the evening, when many people were on the road. All the letters which have reached us upon the subject will be forwarded by this post to the Secretary's office. Sir David

691
Roche is an excellent landlord, and employs a great number of people; liberal in his politics, and highly respected in his neighbourhood. What can be said of the state of society when such men are selected as victims? Believe me, my dear Sir James, very truly and sincerely yours,
"HEYTESBURY.
"Right Hon. Sir James Graham, Bart."
An account, furnished to his Excellency by the foreman of the grand jury at Limerick, stated that—
"Sir D. Roche and Mr. James Denis Lyons were proceeding to their homes, in the carriage of the former, shortly after having attended court to be sworn in, at or about the hour of 7, when, as they were passing an orchard enclosure, two shots were fired at them in rapid succession, fortunately without effect."
To this communication an answer was returned by the Lord Lieutenant, assuring the grand jury that every exertion would be made to bring the offenders to justice. A communication received by the Lord Lieutenant stated that no cause could be assigned for this attempt, as Sir D. Roche was one of the best of landlords, and gave a great quantity of work in the country, except that it proceeded from one of his tenants, who had a dispute with his sister-in-law about some land, and Sir David, as was quite right, protected the widow. Their Lordships would see that the opinion he had formed was based on the information of men thoroughly acquainted with the state of Ireland. Nothing could be more painful to him than to propose any measure which tended to abridge the liberty of the subject; but the first duty of the Government was to extend that feeling of personal security and protection to every member of the State, which was his first and most valuable right. With this view the present measure had been introduced, and he now moved that their Lordships resolve themselves into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not rise to oppose the proposition, nor to enter into the subject last broached by his noble Friend, and illustrated by those very afflicting statements which covered one with shame at the very thought that there should be a part of our fellow countrymen leading lives so detestable as those of the victims of this delusion—for it could be called nothing else—that they had a right to massacre their landlords for making a lawful and righteous use of their own property, and who were under the still greater delusion on this account—that if there was any one class of the community who had a direct and immediate interest in preserving
692
the rights of property and keeping sacred the rights of proprietors, landlords included, it was the peasantry of the country, who lived under those landlords. He did not mean to say one word to countervail the statements of his noble Friend, or in reference to the afflicting statements from the different grand juries to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. They were all agreed that something must be done; that some measure was required for the peace of Ireland; that, if possible, it was necessary to devise some efficacious measure to repress those crimes that were unfortunately so frequent there; and without exaggeration, to make Ireland once more become, in all its parts and provinces, a habitable country—a country that could be inhabited safely by the peaceful subjects of the Crown. But he might admit all this, and yet not admit that this Bill was good for the purpose. His noble Friend had applied to him to postpone an important part of the Amendment proposed by him and by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice. Now it was not an Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, though he concurred in it. He (Lord Brougham) had proposed it, because the Lord Chief Justice objected to having the provisions it contained confined to Ireland, and to cases of misdemeanor. He, in fact, took the same view as the noble Lord opposite. He wished to confer the general power of making the trial of offences transitory instead of local. He would accede to that proposal, and postpone for the present the consideration of that Amendment, to be made part of a more general measure. As to the objections of the noble Earl to the proposal of the Lord Chief Justice, that the magistrate should have the power to dismiss or imprison a man found out at night, he had only to say that he was sure the noble and learned Lord would feel that the proposal of giving that power to the sessions embraced the spirit of his Amendment. The object of the Amendment was this, that if a man were taken before a judge and jury to be tried for the offence, he would have to prove by witnesses, not by any explanation of his own, why he was out after sunset; but by the proposed Amendment, if his own explanation of the reason why he was out after sunset was satisfactory to the magistrate before whom he was taken, it would be in the power of that magistrate or the sessions to set him at liberty, without requiring witnesses. Such a provision

693
would be a great improvement in the Bill, and a great safeguard to the public liberty. One word as to transportation. He understood that in Ireland very great weight was attached to the punishment of transportation. All the noble Lords and Gentlemen from Ireland he had heard speak on this subject stated that it had a great effect in deterring from the commission of crime. He wished, however, to offer a hint as to the manner of its execution. He held it to be of the utmost importance that when any person, either for misdemeanours or for any other offences, should be sentenced to transportation, especially in Ireland, no interval whatever should be allowed to elapse between the sentence and the execution of that sentence. The sending a convict from the dock to the vessel which was to convey him away had tenfold more effect in overawing criminals, and deterring them from the commission of the like offences in time to come, than double the punishment, perhaps, if not combined with that speedy and prompt execution. He did not mean immediate removal to New South Wales, without leaving time for the interposition of the Crown; but that the commencement of the execution of the punishment should be immediate, and that no time should be lost in having the delinquent removed to the hulks. They all remembered the celebrated case which occurred in Yorkshire twenty or twenty-two years ago. A person was charged by a man and his daughter with committing a capital felony—a rape, in short, on the latter. The case was proved to be a conspiracy. It commenced at nine o'clock in the morning. By ten o'clock it was evident to the Judge that there must be an acquittal—that the evidence was down right perjury. He asked, accordingly, whether the grand jury were discharged. They were not. Then let a bill be sent up. A true bill was found before eleven. The prosecutors in the first case, the prisoners in the second, were tried at twelve o'clock, and at three they were in a cart, condemned and sentenced, on their way from York—the execution of the sentence of transportation having actually begun. The excellent effect of this prompt commencement of the punishment was well known to all who attended the northern circuit at that time. He hoped, also, that, when a murder was committed, the Executive would revive the old practice of executing the murderer in the district where the crime was committed. He would defer
694
any other observation he had to make till after they went into Committee; only remarking, that the noble Earl should observe that some of the memorials read referred to the fact that juries required to be protected in the discharge of their duties.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
Clause 1 was postponed for the purpose of discussing Lord Denman's proposed Amendment when his Lordship could be present.
Clauses 2 to 5 were agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to after a desultory conversation respecting the power of magistrates to compel witnesses to come forward and give evidence although no person could yet have been charged with the crime.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive being money clauses, providing for the payment of money out of the Consolidated Fund, and for a rate to be made and levied to recover again from the county or district the sum so paid, it was proposed that they should be expunged.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHobserved, that the English Consolidated Fund ought not to be made to advance the sum in the first instance for a crime committed in Ireland. This was money for a local purpose.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, there must be no delay in the payment of the sum, but the words would be found to be, "from the Consolidated Fund arising in Ireland."
These clauses being expunged up to Clause 13,
EARL GREYobserved, that Clause 13, providing for the levying the rate to repay this sum to the Consolidated Fund, threw the burden upon the occupiers as distinguished from the landlords, and upon the small occupiers, those whose premises were under the value of 4l., and they were not to deduct this rate from their rent. It was not just thus to exempt the landlords: though they were not the cause of these outrages and evils, Ireland never would have got into its present state, the existing state of society there would never have been such as it was, if the landlords, as a body, had done their duty to the population under them. He should object to this part of the Bill, if it returned with Clauses 13 and 14 in it.
The EARL of RODENremarked, that when the noble Earl thought proper to state that the present condition to which society was reduced in Ireland was owing

695
to a neglect of duty on the part of the landlords, he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he did not give the statement as direct a contradiction as the courtesy of the House would allow him to give to any individual who ventured to make such an assertion. With regard to these clauses, he thought that making the people pay compensation was the best way of putting a stop to the atrocities which had been committed.
LORD FARNHAM, also, as a resident landlord, must repudiate in the strongest manner that Parliamentary language would admit the unwarrantable attack made upon the landlords of Ireland. All the harm that he wished the noble Earl for that remark was, that he was an Irish landed proprietor, and obliged to live there.
EARL GREYdid not wish to be misapprehended on this subject, and therefore he would state at once that he believed that of late years an improvement had taken place in the conduct of the landlords of Ireland towards their tenantry; but, if they looked to the past history of that land, the awful state of things now existing would be seen to be a direct consequence of the dereliction of ther duty by the upper classes of that country, which was an historical fact known not only to England, but to all Europe. ["No, no!"] Noble Lords opposite might repudiate it; but the opinion of the universe was settled upon this point, and nothing they could say would alter it. He trusted the improvement was going on; but even of late years, that acts of great injustice and tyranny had been committed upon the peasantry of Ireland, was not to be doubted.
The EARL of WICKLOWwas surprised that the noble Earl who had just sat down should wish to throw this rate upon the present landlords, as he withdrew all blame from them. [Earl GREY: No, no.] If history showed that the blame rested anywhere, it was on the gross misgovernment which Ireland had suffered from this country.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, the question to be considered in reference to this clause was how the pecuniary local burden was to be laid so as to create the strongest interest in the locality to prevent the commission of crime. The offences contemplated by the Bill were not committed by the landlords, but by the lower orders, and by strangers frequenting the district, who found a ready reception in the house of the lower orders; the burden,
696
therefore, ought to fall on those who gave the assassin encouragement, and they ought to be made to feel that they were incurring the danger of a penalty which would come home to themselves. He consequently gave his support to the clause.
The EARL of CLANCARTYexpressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the noble Marquess.
EARL GREYquite agreed that the occupiers should bear their share of the burthen. All he asked was that the landlords should also pay their share, so that all classes might have the strongest interest in the preservation of order.
The EARL of WICKLOWobserved that the landlords would have to bear a share of the burthen as occupiers.
The clause was then expunged, as was also the following clause, they being money clauses.
Clause 15, giving power to apprehend persons out of their dwellings between one hour after sunset and sunrise in proclaimed districts, being read,
The EARL of WICKLOWproposed the introduction of the words "under suspicious circumstances," which, he said, were to be found in the Bill of 1833.
The LORD CHANCELLORexpressed his opinion that the Bill would not be at all injured by the introduction of the proposed words; and it was agreed that the words should be inserted in the clause, but, as it required further consideration in other respects, it was postponed.
Clause 16 was next read, it being understood that the introduction of the words "under suspicious circumstances," in the preceding clause, would necessitate the insertion of similar words in the present.
EARL GREYsaid, he had to move to this clause an Amendment, of which he had given notice. The object of the clause was to make it a misdemeanour for any person in a proclaimed district to be out of his abode between one hour after sunset and sunrise except upon some lawful occasion, which he would be called on to prove; and by the 21st Clause it was enacted that a person so offending would be liable to transportation beyond the seas for a term not exceeding fifteen years.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that as the clause was to be altered, and the words "under suspicious circumstances" to be introduced, the noble Earl had better apply his argument to the clause as it was intended to be altered.
EARL GREYthought that he should be

697
able to show that the introduction of the words "under suspicious circumstances" did not make such a material difference as the noble and learned Lord seemed to imagine. The effect of the two clauses would be to make an offence against a police regulation subject the offender to the severe punishment of transportation for fifteen years; and the Amendment which he intended to propose would have the effect of limiting the punishment for this offence, which was no moral offence, but a mere infringement of police regulation, to imprisonment for a period limited to one year. It appeared to him that the power proposed to be conferred by this Bill upon the Executive Government was in the highest degree objectionable. He believed the noble Earl (Earl St. Germans) would not deny that, for he told them that nothing but a case of overwhelming necessity would justify their Lordships in adopting so severe a measure, and that such a necessity existed. He (Earl Grey) called upon their Lordships to consider how great an infringement of the personal liberty of all the inhabitants of a proclaimed district this Bill involved. During all the hours of darkness—in winter for somewhere about sixteen hours out of the twenty-four—no man was to be allowed to stir out of his house without incurring the risk of transportation for fifteen years. From four or five o'clock in the afternoon till past eight on the following morning, during the month of December, no inhabitant of a proclaimed district in Ireland was to be allowed to set his foot outside the door of his cabin without rendering himself liable to this severe punishment. He might not even venture from home during that time to visit a friend, or to enjoy at any place a few hours of harmless recreation. Nay, he dared not even go to his work in the morning, or return from his work in the evening, so as to gain the advantage of the hours of daylight, without rendering himself liable to arrest at the will of a police constable, and to be kept in confinement in default of proving what no man could prove—that he was out with innocent intentions. If he (Earl Grey) were to act upon his own judgment, he would have proposed the omission of this clause altogether; but as he had heard from his noble Friend to-night that it was absolutely necessary, in the disturbed districts of Ireland, to prevent the population from leaving their homes at night, he deferred—though most reluctantly—to the judgment of the noble Earl; and he was
698
compelled, under such circumstances, to consent that, in the disturbed districts of Ireland, the Executive Government should be armed with the extraordinary power of confining the whole population to their houses during the time he had mentioned. But he must say that no deference to the judgments of others, no arguments he had yet heard, could induce him to consent that the infringement of a regulation of this description—that any offence which was made an offence by Act of Parliament, and which involved no moral guilt—should subject a harmless and unoffending man, who thoughtlessly, or perhaps forgetfully, might violate the law, to be torn from his friends, and consigned, for a period of fifteen years, to a penal colony at the other extremity of the globe. To this severe punishment any might subject himself who sought relief from the tedium of a fifteen or sixteen hours' confinement in a miserable cabin, by merely visiting a neighbour. Was this, he would ask, a fit punishment for so venial an offence? Such an extremity of punishment, as compared with the character of the offence, was so shocking to every feeling of natural justice, that he for one could not consent to the Bill in its present shape. He knew he should be told that this provision was not intended to apply to persons of harmless and unoffending character; but that only those who were apprehended under suspicious circumstances would be subjected to this severe punishment; but that did not remove the objections which he entertained to those clauses as they stood at present in the Bill. It was said by the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) that the words "under suspicious circumstances" were to be introduced into the Bill; but they did not, in his opinion, materially alter the portion of it to which he objected. He wished that some of their Lordships would define what "suspicious circumstances" were. He wished any noble Lord would inform him how they were to distinguish between the case of a man who was apprehended during the prohibited hours, and who had left his home on a lawful occasion, and that of a man who was abroad with some guilty object. Let them suppose the case of a man who left home during the hours of darkness to visit a sick relation or friend, and that of another man who, under pretence of a similar object, left home at the same time, in order to join a party of Whiteboys, and who had his blunderbuss concealed in a neighbouring bog. These two men might

699
be apprehended on the same road, and within a quarter of an hour, by the same person; and how were they to distinguish between the man who was innocent, and the man who had left his home with a guilty intent? They might also suppose the case of a man who left home to consult his priest about some pressing family affairs, or on other urgent business, and who, under similar circumstances, might be apprehended; and how was he to establish his innocence? He protested against the adoption of this Bill, which, for the mere fact of a man's being out at night—a fact which implied no guilty intent whatever, but was compatible with perfect innocence, would subject him—unless the accused party could prove his innocence, which as to intent was utterly impossible—to the unreasonably severe punishment of transportation. But he might be told that there was, after all, one means of ascertaining whether a man ought to be punished or not; that it was perfectly true, in the cases to which he had referred, innocent and guilty parties might be arrested under nearly similar circumstances, but that, when the extent of punishment to be inflicted was considered, they might be guided by a man's character. Yes, one man might be known to be a dangerous character—a man of whom it was necessary to get rid, and he would be transported; while a man who, there was every reason to believe, was an unoffending and innocent person, would either be at once discharged, or visited with a merely nominal punishment. But if this was the ground on which they intended to proceed, he begged them to mark how dangerous a principle they were laying down. Would any noble Lord in that House approve a measure which would empower the Lord Lieutenant, if a person was reported to him as a dangerous character and likely to be concerned in disturbances, although no proof of the charge might be adduced, to issue a summary order for the transportation of such an individual? He was sure there was no Member of that House who would not at once declare that such a power ought not to be granted to any Government. If they really intended to transport men because their characters were bad, he thought it would be much better to do so openly and avowedly, instead of convicting them of a most venial offence, for which they were nominally punished, and punishing them really on account of their character. He considered that if this
700
measure was passed in its present form, a most tremendous and unjustifiable power would be given to the Executive. But it might be said that the Judges, by whom the sentence would be determined, would be able to ascertain the characters of the accused parties. But such investigations could not be conducted publicly; and while, on the one hand, it would not be difficult in Ireland for a person who was really guilty to bring forward witnesses who would give him an excellent character; on the other hand, if it was determined that an innocent person should be sacrificed, it would not be difficult to render his guilt apparent. It must be remembered that character was merely a matter of opinion, and the province of Judges was not to try questions of opinion, but matters of fact. Under the proposed law, any man, however harmless and innocent, might, on the secret statement of a person who might be misinformed, perhaps malicious—made without the accused person having any opportunity of contradicting it—be condemned to the very severest punishment; and his family, and all dependent upon him, might be involved in the deepest distress. What were the grounds of suspicion on which a man was to be subjected to this punishment? Was it to be deemed a suspicious circumstance that a man who had been treated with extreme harshness by his landlord, had expressed a strong feeling on the subject? Was it to be considered a suspicious circumstance that a man who had been the victim of the clearance system, which he (Earl Grey) was afraid was still continued in Ireland, should have expressed himself with some warmth towards his landlord? Was such a man to be suspected of a connivance at those agrarian outrages which were committed in Ireland, or of being connected with those midnight legislators who took upon themselves to redress grievances in that country? But although a man might be entirely innocent of any connexion of this kind, or of any intention to injure his landlord, what would be the effect of the measure now before them? If a man had been ejected by his landlord from a small farm which he had greatly improved, and for which improvements he obtained no compensation when he was turned out—if he were made a victim of the clearance system, which had not as yet been discontinued in Ireland, and expressed himself strongly in consequence of this treatment, would not those be called "suspicious circumstances" against the

701
man who had been so oppressed? Might he not be strongly suspected, and perhaps not without reason, of allying himself with midnight legislators, and thus, the man being innocent, might, under those "suspicious circumstances," be transported, because he had been the victim of gross oppression and tyranny? If he were treated as he (Earl Grey) had described, and gave vent to those feelings which would naturally arise in the breast of any man who had been so dealt with, that would be reckoned ample reason for suspicion, and because he had been the victim of oppression he might be transported. He (Earl Grey) would ask, also, upon whose report a Judge was to determine whether the character of an accused person rendered it necessary that the punishment of transportation should be inflicted? He hoped not upon that of the police; for he was persuaded that a power of that kind was liable to be fearfully abused, and to lead to most cruel oppression. It was no torious that, in former times, the powers possessed by the police were abused for their own purposes; and if such a system were tolerated, he had no doubt that similar abuses would again occur. The Lord Lieutenant had no better means than the Judges possessed of ascertaining a man's character; and if a person was hurried from the prison to the dock, he had little chance of establishing his character, or of disproving the charges made against him, though he might be innocent. How was a man sentenced under this Bill to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant for redress? He was therefore opposed to so severe a sentence being fixed for the commission of such an offence; and he doubted whether such severity was not likely to defeat their object. What, he asked, was at the bottom of this system of agrarian outrage? They all knew that, unfortunately, it was the rooted animosity of the people to the law, and the administrators of the law. From long ages of past misgovernment they had been taught to regard, until lately at all events, with too much justice, the law as their enemy. They were told upon high authority, that there was one law in Ireland for the rich, and another for the poor. They did not forget that state of things—they knew that formerly, if not now, the law existed not for the protection of the humbler classes, but to oppress and degrade them; and unfortunately they had not, with the change of circumstances, unlearnt the lesson
702
which long lessons of misgovernment had taught them. Before they could enact any permanent improvement in Ireland, they must eradicate that lesson from the minds of the Irish people, and must teach them that the law existed not to coerce and oppress them, but to protect them and promote their welfare; and he would ask whether they were likely to be taught that lesson by such a measure as this? He, therefore, should propose, that at the end of the 16th Clause these words should be added—
"And upon being convicted thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding one year."
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, his noble Friend appeared to have made one fundamental mistake in the whole of his argument. He appeared to treat this Bill as directed against the peasantry of Ireland; whereas it was intended for a directly opposite purpose—for their protection and security. He admitted its apparent inequality of justice, and that the punishment appeared enormous for so small an offence; but why had such a measure been so repeatedly enacted? Because it was found impossible to carry the law into effect without some such provision; and often as it had been enacted, he had never yet heard a single instance of one of those hardships which, his noble Friend thought would be the inevitable consequences of it. But he would appeal from the speech of his noble Friend to the speech of the late Earl Grey, when he introduced the Coercion Act of 1833. That noble Earl depicted in strong terms the harshness of its provisions; but he drew an inference very different from that which had been drawn by the noble Lord, and was quite sure that the Bill of 1833 contained much more stringent provisions than the proposed measure. He should, therefore, support the proposed Bill.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, there was no such provision in that Act, but there was one making the intimidation of witnesses a transportable offence.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his impression was, that the Act of 1833 did not contain a provision similar to the one in question.
The EARL of WICKLOW: But it contained one infinitely more stringent, and that Bill was at least efficacious.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as allusion had been made to the Act of 1833, and as he had, from the circumstances of his being

703
at that time Solicitor General, and there being no law officer of the Crown in Ireland in Parliament, assisted in passing that Bill, he thought it right to assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) that he was mistaken in supposing that that Act contained any such provision as this. The 22nd section of that Act made it a misdemeanor to be out at night an hour after sunset, and before sunrise; but it made it simply a misdemeanor, without allotting to it any particular punishment. [The Earl of WICKLOW: There is a subsequent clause.] There was a subsequent clause, making it a transportable offence to intimidate a witness or a juryman; but that was an aggravated offence, properly made so punishable. The other was simply a misdemeanor. The Amendment of his noble Friend contemplated introducing the same distinction into this Bill; making the offence of being out at night simply a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment; whilst at the same time it would allow the aggravated offence of intimidation of a witness or juryman being punished, as it ought to be, more severely. He was as anxious as any noble Lord to remedy the existing state of things: but he was very much afraid that this Bill was not the proper course. Now, upon the 16th Clause an indictment might be framed to this effect:—that A. B., &c., of &c., was, on the — day of —, an hour after sunset, found upon the Queen's highway out of his dwelling-house under suspicious circumstances, and not upon his lawful occasions, contrary to the Statute in that case made and provided. That would be a good indictment under this clause; and a person who was out of his dwelling an hour after sunset would come within the clause, if he were out upon some occasion not strictly lawful, although not of that kind which this measure had in view: as, for instance, he might be out poaching, or on some little affair of gallantry. Now, only let the House consider what the punishment was. It was the highest in the law of England next to capital punishment. It was a punishment which had indeed been substituted for capital punishment in many cases: such as horse-stealing, forgery, and the like. By this Bill, then, the same punishment was to be inflicted upon a man for the venial offence of being out at night, as upon a man who had shown himself incapable of social duty. He did not think this a proper cure for the malady which they all deeply deplored, and which consisted in not being endued with a respect
704
for the law. The respect of the people for the law would not be increased by making the law cruel and unjust. He did trust that, upon consideration, their Lordships would find that the object which they had all in view would be more effectually gained by conceding the Amendment of his noble Friend (Earl Grey.) He admitted that the object of preventing the people being out at night in disturbed districts was a very desirable one. The opinion of Mr. O'Connell had been already referred to. Now, whatever might be the errors into which that hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen, and which he deplored as much as any one, it could not be denied that he had always strongly discouraged the practice of marauding parties going about through the country. He repeated that he thought it very desirable that means should be taken to put down that offence; but he thought that that could best be accomplished by making the punishment more proportionate to the offence.
LORD BROUGHAMentirely agreed with his noble Friend who had moved the Amendment, and with his noble and learned Friend who spoke last, that this matter was worthy of the greatest attention—that it was a point of great importance; and he was sure it had not been taken up from any factious, or what was called a party motive. He owned that at first he had had some doubts on the subject; but he meant no disrespect to the arguments of his noble Friends, or to the scope of their purpose, when he said that the fullest consideration when he had been able to give to the subject had ended in his having an opinion in favour of the Bill, and not in favour of the Amendment. His noble Friends, as it appeared to him, had been led away by their feelings with regard to the coercive provisions of the Bill, and had not sufficiently attended to what really were the powers which were about to be bestowed by Government and Parliament on the courts of justice. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had assumed—and in doing so had entirely begged the question—that the offence which was to be visited with transportation was what he was pleased to call the venial offence of being out at night after dark. But that was not the case. It was not the venial offence of being out after dark which was to be visited with transportation; it was the offence, which he (Lord Brougham) did not call venial, of being out at night under suspicious circumstances—of not being out

705
upon a lawful occasion, and therefore unlawfully out at a time when the Legislature had declared that the public security required that the people should not be out at night under suspicious circumstances, and upon unlawful occasions. That was the offence; and here he must stop to say one word respecting what his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had repeatedly urged in the course of his speech—namely, that this was no moral offence. He (Lord Brougham) never liked to hear distinctions taken between moral offences and what were called legal and illegal offences. It was the duty of every good subject to hold that when the laws of his country prohibited certain acts, those acts so prohibited became offences and immoral things in the case of any man who committed them; and if you say that such and such offences are not moral offences, and that such and such others are immoral, you tend very much to break down the securities you have against offences, and to diminish the public dislike for crime, and the public reprobation of disorder. He protested also against its being said that the offence in question was necessarily in all cases to be visited with the punishment of transportation for 15 years. This was not the fact. The court before whom the case was to be tried was to be armed merely with the power to examine into all the circumstances of the case, and award a punishment not exceeding transportation for fifteen years; and, in order to make it more certain that this power should not be abused, and that no man should be unjustly, thoughtlessly, and indiscriminately tried, it was proposed by a judicious Amendment, which had been introduced that night, that, instead of being sent before a local magistrate, all such prisoners should be tried before a Judge of Assize, or a Special Commission. And if upon trial it should be found that the offence was not an aggravated one, the court would have the power to impose a fine of 5s., or to award a week's or a month's imprisonment, in place of the extreme punishment of transportation for 15 years, which his noble Friends had always assumed to be the minimum in place of the maximum.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS: It is now proposed to be limited to seven years.
LORD BROUGHAM: Well, that is the shortest term for which you can send a man abroad. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had talked of the severity of transportation for this offence.
706
But did his noble and learned Friend forget that even under the Act of 1833 a man might be imprisoned for three years in a common gaol for the venial offence of being found out of his own house after dark, and that was not much better than transportation. But it was said why not define the circumstances which constituted the offence? Because they could not be defined. Why, the being out at night with fifty or sixty people might be no aggravation at one time, and it might be at another. When there was a rebellion in a district, and a mob of fifty or sixty people assembled together after dark, that would be a grievous aggravation. It might be no aggravation for one man to have a bludgeon in his hand; but if there were fifty people all with bludgeons in their hands, it would be a very aggravated offence. Or, suppose a man was found out of his house after sunset in a proclaimed district with a concealed pistol, that would be a great aggravation; and if he (Lord Brougham) were the Judge who tried the case, he would take that into view in reckoning the punishment. A noble Lord had just reminded him, that under the Whiteboy Act it was an offence to be found with a shirt over one's coat; and no doubt, in a peculiar state of society, this did become an offence. In the course of the discussion allusion had been made to the grievances of Ireland, and the necessity for remedying them. When the proper time came, he should be ready to listen to any suggestions for remedying those grievances; but he solemnly protested against mixing up these with the present question, for they had no necessary connection with each other; and, if mixed up together, the result would only be to lessen the abhorrence which all felt for the curse which desolated Ireland, to comfort the wrongdoer, and dishearten the peaceful subject. On the whole, he felt it to be his duty—though a very painful one—to support the measure; and in doing so so he felt that he was giving his support to a measure infinitely less stringent than that which he had himself introduced into that House personally for the acceptance of their Lordships; for, although it was true that there was a superior degree of severity enacted in this Bill which was not in the former, in so far as it made a misdemeanor a transportable offence, yet it was undeniable that the court-martial clauses in the former measure were much more severe; and, though these clauses had been much objected to, he had

707
persisted in adhering to them, and the result had justified his anticipations, for not one single man had been tried under those court-martial clauses, the terror produced by seeing the Government resolved to do its duty in protecting life and property having rendered it unnecessary to put them in operation.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwished it to be understood distinctly that in voting for the clause as it stood, and against the Amendment, he did not mean to express his approbation of the Bill generally. He thought it extremely ill-drawn and ill-contrived; and if its duration were not very much modified, he should reserve to himself the right of voting against it upon the third reading. But if Ireland was to have a Bill in the nature of a Coercion Bill—a temporary Bill, in which view alone he supported it—that invested extraordinary powers in the Government beyond the Constitution, he must certainly support the clause, for if it were thrown out, there was nothing in the Bill to arm the Government with powers beyond the common and permanent law. He understood the Government did not pretend to call for the powers of this Bill, except for a limited time, in order to put an end to a most dangerous state of things; and in this view he supported the clause. Was it, he would ask, teaching the people to respect the law to let them, year after year, see that by combinations they could defeat the law, and that those who were inclined to observe it might be murdered or injured with impunity by those who so combined? The Legislature must show there were powers in the Constitution which from time to time might be exhibited with extraordinary rigour, and that the legitimate authorities were able to vindicate their power when necessary. His noble Friend who moved the Amendment laboured, throughout all his speech, under a mistake. When illustrating his argument, he drew on his imagination for a picture of what he called a victim of "suspicious circumstances," and it was always the same picture, of a man ejected from land, and this man directing his mind towards vengeance against his landlord. He regretted that the returns he moved for on a former evening, were not on the Table—if they were, he could prove to the noble Earl that landlords were not the victims of the assassin, so much as the honest and unoffending peasantry. The noble Lord who referred to the late attempt made on the life of Sir David Roche, might
708
have quoted from a paper of the same date a still more horrible and barbarous attack on an honest industrious peasant—one who had not the same means of defence as Sir David Roche. This poor man was attacked in his own house, horribly maltreated, and sworn to quit land he had occupied for fifty years. Here there was no question of ejectment; the land he was sworn to give up possession of was not claimed in any way by the miscreants who attacked him; but those who were acquainted with the state of the country would ask no better proof of the man's honesty than this murderous assault. He was not assaulted because he took land over the head of others—but because he had honestly resisted all attempts to induce him to join the illegal combinations that were now the curse of the country. The taking away of arms was another class of offences exclusively directed against the lower orders. Some noble Lords had argued upon this measure as if it were intended to be the law all over Ireland; but they must recollect it was only for those districts in which no wise or honest man would be out after sunset. It would certainly be much better in his opinion if the transportations were limited for seven years; but the best effects of this measure would be, that it would inspire the well-disposed honest people of the country with confidence in the ruling powers, and the evil-doers with terror. If the Government had answered in a firm tone at an earlier period to the remonstrances made to them on the subject of agrarian crime, there would have been no cause for this Bill; but they had shown too much vacillation, too much reliance upon what was called the ordinary course of the law; and it had been made a boast, more than once, that the ordinary law had been maintained in Ireland. The language, in answer to those remonstrances should have been, "We wish to repress crime if we can under ordinary circumstances; but let it be known to honest men they shall be supported, and to dishonest men they shall be punished by a rigour beyond the power of the common law." If that language had been held at the proper time, a great deal of crime would have been prevented. Under present circumstances, the clause now under discussion was the clause alone that would make the Bill of any value.
LORD COTTENHAMwould give his support to the Bill, if a limitation was given to its existence, because he thought this was nothing more than an extraordinary expedient

709
to meet an extraordinary occasion. He understood that the Amendments proposed limited the operation of the Bill to a certain period; and he was glad to hear that such a proposal was favourably received with regard to the clauses which made it a crime for a man to be out between sunset and sunrise, unless he could give a satisfactory account that he was not out for an unlawful purpose. It was undoubtedly a great restriction upon the liberty of the subject, for him to be compelled, under a penalty of transportation, to remain in his house during these hours; but still, from what he had heard of the state of Ireland, he was not disposed to say that these restrictions were, in many cases, imposed unnecessarily. The present was a measure of precaution, in order to prevent persons from perpetrating crime; and it appeared to him that the punishment to be inflicted for a violation of it must be limited by the consideration of what was necessary to enforce it, and you would not be justified in carrying it further. It was impossible to deny that if this Bill passed, and a proclamation came from the Lord Lieutenant, that a man who was out of his house before or after a certain hour would be guilty of an offence: for it was an offence to violate the law, and to disobey an Act of Parliament. But he might have no criminal intentions connected with the offences under this law, and thus this offence was capable of every possible gradation. The man might be almost innocent, or he might be very guilty. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) considered that a great improvement had been made by the introduction of the words "under suspicious circumstances," into the measure. He (Lord Cottenham) approved of the clause as it stood; but at the same time he must observe, it would be extremely difficult for a man to show he was out upon justifiable and lawful grounds; and this difficulty constituted one of the greatest objections which he felt to the Bill. He believed, however, that no man convicted under this Bill would ever be transported, because the Judges of Ireland would not exercise their power, under the circumstances, to the fullest extent. If men were transported under this Bill, it would be because they were persons whom it might be thought expedient to get rid of on account of their character in other respects; but if they were not transported at all, there could not be a greater wrong than to have
710
the power. The terror of it, it was said, would produce a good effect—an argument which might induce their Lordships to grant any power that might be asked for; but the power given in the Bill of transportation ought not to be given unless it was intended to be exercised. And although he thought the words "under suspicious circumstances" were properly introduced, he contended that what constituted a suspicious circumstance ought to be designated. He thought it would answer all the purposes of the Bill, in suppressing outrage in Ireland, if a man being out of his house before or after the hours, was convicted under this clause, was detained in custody—he cared not where—for a given time; but he thought the term suggested by his noble Friend (Earl Grey) was too short. The period which he proposed of one year ought to be extended to two or even to three years. This lengthened imprisonment would operate to prevent outrage and crime; but he was perfectly satisfied that so severe and disproportionate a punishment, for such an offence, as transportation, would defeat its own objects, and shock those who wished punishment to bear some proportion to the offence.
LORD MONTEAGLEclaimed to possess a little more knowledge of the position and circumstances of Ireland, with reference to this matter, than either the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down (Lord Cottenham), or his noble Friend who moved the Amendment (Earl Grey); and with this knowledge, nothing but the strongest sense of duty could have brought him to support the measure now before the House. If he erred in supporting a measure which was objected to as unconstitutional, and stigmatized as severe, he had the good fortune of erring with some of the best and wisest men that Ireland had produced those who were most attached to popular institutions, and most strenuous in the defence of civil liberty. He could not approach the consideration of the question as if this was a Bill which had now been proposed for the first time. He would remind the House of the Insurrection Act. He remembered that Lord Plunkett, a warm friend of liberty, defended the Insurrection Act. Not only when in office did that noble Lord propose it, but out of office he warmly justified and maintained it: and his (Lord Monteagle's) late lamented friend, Sir John Newport, who was ever foremost in defending Irish

711
interests, took the same course, not merely in office, but in opposition. With a generous tone of justice, they stood forward to share the unpopularity and the responsibility of a Government that had performed its duty towards the population of Ireland; and they gave to an adverse Ministry the same strenuous support which they would have given, on such a measure, to their own friends. But the greatest name of all remained to be mentioned. He (Lord Monteagle) knew with regard to this very measure, that at the height of his popularity—nay, at the hazard of his life—Mr. Henry Grattan, the creator of Irish independence, the supporter of Irish liberty, the friend and leader of the people of Ireland, and of the privileges of the Irish Parliament—had no hesitation in giving his uncompromising support to a measure infinitely stronger, more unconstitutional, and more repulsive to all the doctrines wisely laid down for ordinary occasions, than the present. Their Lordships were to consider that the Bill they were now called upon to discuss was not to be perpetual; that it was an exception to the ordinary course of legislation: and that they were dealing with an exceptional case. Every day added to the catalogue of crime to which his noble Friend had alluded. Their Lordships no doubt felt a reluctance in referring to this subject, and still more to the impunity with which crime was perpetrated in Ireland; but he would, nevertheless, take the liberty of calling their Lordships' attention to that subject. He wished to remind the House that that impunity did not arise from any indifference on the part of the Irish people with regard to the crimes committed. No such indifference existed among them; but they were prevented by intimidation from aiding in the suppression of these crimes. It was said that the Irish people did not come forward to give evidence or to act as jurors; but since the days of Sir John Davis, who told them that no people were greater lovers of justice than the Irish people, down to the present time, they were never accused of having a desire to encourage the perpetration of crime; but when they asked them to come forward at the hazard of their lives, and of everything that was dear to them in life, they expected more than could be got from any individual. The upper classes were comparatively safe in exerting themselves for the suppression of crime, but the poor were not safe; and he therefore would say, that the present Bill was
712
properly entitled, "A Bill for the Protection of Life and Property," because there was at present no adequate protection for either in that country. His noble Friend declared that he had no objection to the punishment being fixed under this Act for one year, or for two or three years. But he would put it to the House, if a punishment of three years were to be imposed for such offences, what became of all the arguments used by his noble friends, or of their alleged love of justice? If the penalty inflicted by the Bill, as it at present stood, were so very unjust, and if in its stead a punishment of imprisonment for three years were to be a proper regulation to adopt, what then became of nine-tenths, ay, or of ninety-nine hundredths, or of nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandth parts of the arguments of his noble Friend in favour of the Amendment? But he would meet the proposition of his noble Friend in respect to the substitution of punishment, by asking which penalty was more likely to be effectual? He would reject the proposal of his noble Friend as one which, while it was infinitely more cruel to the individual—["No, no"]—he would maintain that an imprisonment for three years would be more cruel as a punishment for the offence, than the other penalty proposed to be adopted, while it would be also less effectual as a preventive of crime. The present Bill was the mildest and the least unconstitutional measure of the kind that had ever been submitted to Parliament to meet such an evil; and in corroboration of this fact, he might observe, that the Bill which had been supported by Mr. Grattan, authorized the trial of parties offending against its provisions before a bench of magistrates, and without the intervention of a jury. Surely that was a more objectionable enactment than the present Bill, which fixed the trial to take place before a Judge of the land, and with the aid of a jury. But another important consideration was, that the man who was disposed to outrage would, after an imprisonment of three years, come out a perfect adept in crime, to be again let loose among his former associates: and, taken in this point of view, it was absurd to suppose that transportation would not be a better remedy than imprisonment. Such a person, by being removed altogether from his guilty associates, would cease to be mischievous by his removal to a convict settlement. He did not pretend to say that, on many occasions, when Insurrection Acts were in force in

713
Ireland, there might not have been cases of abuse under them. In fact, it was scarcely possible to imagine the administration of any law of great severity without some abuses taking place; but he would say this, that having heen connected with a county in Ireland in which Insurrection Acts had unfortunatey been in force during nearly the whole of the periods of their existence in that country, he had never heard of a single case there in which the powers conferred by these Acts had been applied to improper purposes. While he supported this Bill—a measure intended to be local in its application, and temporary in its duration—he felt bound to say that he would be sorry to trust to an Insurrection Act, or to any such measure, for improving permanently the state of Ireland. They should look to a totally different class of measures to effect that object; but these measures of improvement ought in his opinion to be kept totally distinct from the present Bill, because, if both were brought forward at the same time, they would raise the inference in the minds of many, that the acts of outrage which they wished to suppress had some justification, or were connected with evils which it was in the power of Parliament to prevent. He had no inclination to support any measure calculated to diminish the liberty of the people; but feeling, as he did, that the greater punishment was more likely to prove the better remedy for the evil, he wished, in giving his vote against the Amendment, to guard against misconception, and at the same time to take his full share, as an individual Member of Parliament, of the responsibility of such a measure.
LORD LANGDALEsaid, the greater part of the noble Lord's speech, in opposition to the Amendment, referred to the principle of the Bill, to which nobody objected, and seemed to be founded on the supposition that the Amendment had been brought forward with the intention of obstructing the measure, which none of those noble Lords by whom the Amendment was supported had any intention of doing. There was no question as to the principle of the Bill; and he hoped they had not got to such a state of things, that any attempt to improve a Bill was to be regarded as an attempt to obstruct its progress. Had any one doubted the necessity of employing an extraordinary remedy for the evils against which they had to provide? Under the circumstances in which Ireland was placed.
714
it became necessary to take certain precautions, and to make it an offence to appear out of doors between sunset and sunrise on the following day. Nobody doubted the necessity of that precaution, or that in adopting it they were under the necessity of making that an offence which in itself, and without regard to this measure, would be an act perfectly innocent in its nature. It was in itself no offence to be out of doors during these hours; but the liberty of being abroad at such times was considered to facilitate the commission of offences of a dangerous character, and the Legislature, therefore, thought proper to adopt the provisions of the present Bill, and to make the fact of a person appearing absent from his home after nightfall an offence. Now, it was plain that such an offence admitted of every degree of aggravation. It was an offence, or a violation of the law, to do that which the law forbids to be done; but still there might be such a justification for a person being absent from his home, that the offence would be of the most trivial kind; whereas, on the other hand, it might be aggravated to the greatest extent. The question then arose, was there to be one law and one punishment, subject alone to the discretion of the Judge who tried the case, for these different degrees of offence? It was said that the punishment of transportation for seven years—and he was glad the penalty had been reduced to that extent — was the utmost that could be imposed under the Act, and that any degree of punishment under that was to be left to the discretion of the authorities. Discretionary law was not very advisable under any circumstances; and the Amendment of his noble Friend simply was, that, if there were no circumstances of aggravation, they were not to exceed one year's imprisonment. But his noble Friend never said that if there were to be great aggravation of the offence, they might not go the whole length of the proposed penalty. The question was merely which course was best to adopt, and which was most calculated to correct the state of Ireland. He believed they all concurred in the same object. There was no disposition shown on the part of any noble Lord to obstruct, or to place impediments in the way of the measure which the Government had thought right to bring forward; but his noble Friend and others were of opinion that the Government had not selected the mode of punishment which would be best on all occasions: and agreeing

715
in that opinion, he should vote for the Amendment.
EARL GREYsaid, he would at once adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend, who thought that one year might be too short a period of imprisonment, and he would make it two years. He wished to be permitted to add, that among all the noble Lords who had spoken on this question, not one had attempted to deny that every variety in degree of offences might be committed under the Act.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, a noble Lord had reminded him, that it did not appear to be generally known whether the Government had given up the punishment of fifteen years or not. He begged to state that such was the fact, and that seven years had been adopted as the extreme penalty.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he would also wish to know from the noble Earl what was the limit intended to be given to the operation of the Act? When they were about adopting a measure of such a character, however necessary it might be, it was most important that a limit should be fixed to its duration.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, the noble Marquess was aware that the clause as printed fixed the duration of the Act to five years; but both he, and, he believed, his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), would not have any insuperable objection to fixing its duration for three years, and the end of the then existing Session of Parliament.
The EARL of COURTOWNexpressed a hope that the Government would persevere in fixing the continuance of the Act at five years.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, the Bill would meet with great opposition in another place, and it might be impossible to renew it hereafter. He thought, therefore, that they should put in the words, "to the end of the next Session of Parliament," and not "to the end of the then Session of Parliament."
LORD COTTENHAMsaid, the Government, knowing when the Act would terminate, could apply for its renewal, if thought necessary, in one Session, as well as in the Session after it.
LORD REDESDALEsuggested, that a fixed day, say the 1st of November, 1849, should be named in the Bill, because circumstances might occur to bring the Session of Parliament to a sudden termination,
716
which would prevent the subject being taken into consideration.
The EARL of LONSDALEbegged to remind the House that they were going away from the question immediately before them.
House divided. For the Amendment: — Contents 7; Not Contents 38: Majority against the Amendment 31.

List of the CONTENTS.

LORDS.

Carrington

Cottenham

Lilford

Campbell

Kinnaird

Langdale

Grey

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthen moved that the operation of the Bill be limited to three years, ending the 1st of October, 1849.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he thought even three years too long a period; and if the Amendment of his noble Friend were not agreed to, he would, on the third reading, vote against the Bill altogether.
The EARL of ST. GERMANSsaid, it was of importance that the House should be as unanimous as possible on the subject, and he would therefore consent to the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to. Bill passed through Committee. House resumed.
House adjourned.